William Blum:--'Mush-Minded Liberals'

[Aidoneus]

February 18, 2004
Anti-Empire Report
Mush-Minded Liberals
By WILLIAM BLUM

The following is not simply a diatribe against humorist Al Franken. It's a diatribe against all mushy-thinking liberals. Franken tells us he is against the war in Iraq. But he was part of a tour that went to Iraq to entertain the troops, truly a feat of intellectual and moral gymnastics that enables him to oppose terrible military violence and crimes against humanity while honoring those who carry out the terrible military violence and crimes against humanity.

Would he have condemned the oppression and torture inflicted by General Pinochet while expressing his support of the Chilean troops carrying out the oppression and torture? The American troops in Iraq do not even have the defense of having been drafted. Country singer Darryl Worley, who leans "a lot to the right," as he puts it, said he was far from pleased that Franken was coming along on the tour. "You know, I just don't understand --why would somebody be on this tour if they're not supportive of the war?"

Franken says that the Bush administration "blew the diplomacy so we didn't have a real coalition." Presumably, if the United States had been more successful in bribing and threatening other countries to lend their name in support of the war Franken would have then seen the splendid beauty of the war effort himself.

He also criticizes the administration because they "failed to send enough troops to do the job right", the Washington Post reported. What "job" does the man think they were sent to do that has not been done up to his standards because of lack of manpower? Did he want them to be more efficient at killing Iraqis who resisted the occupation? {1}

And then we have the case of Michael Moore supporting unindicted war criminal General Wesley Clark for president. God help the American left.

--snip--

http://www.counterpunch.org/blum02182004.html

[RichM]

1. I like William Blum. I recently read his 'West Bloc Dissident" autobio.

His use of the phrase "God help the American left" here strikes me as a widely applicable sentiment, as is "Mush-Minded Liberals." A quick look at DU itself is all one should need to be convinced of this.

[Aidoneus]

5. indeed, disheartening as that is

didn't see much of you for a while, good to see you're still around.

Blum's always a good read. Haven't read West Bloc Dissident yet.

[NV1962]

2. Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!

<...> unindicted war criminal General Wesley Clark for president <...>

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

How the FECK does he dare to come out with that phony, limp-wristed liberal BS!!!

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

As if 10,000 Iraqi civilians...

As if 800,000 Rwandans...

As if 1.5 million Albano-Kosovars...

As if... Wesley Clark even comes close to the human filth that is Oliver North and Otto Reich.

Another ivory tower yanqui on the ignore list.

[Aidoneus]

3. me or Blum?

I've never landed on an ignore list yet.. thanks, if so. Glad I could strike a nerve. But as a correction if you were referring to me, I'm not a yanqui, but rather a PacNWer.

[NV1962]

4. Blum - of course

(And I say "of course" because if you're Blum you're in trouble! LOL)

[Aidoneus]

6. oh.. :(

well, I do like Blum--can I still land on ignore?

[NV1962]

7. If Bush can land on a carrier... Why not! ;-)

[kaitykaity]

8. First Mickey Z. and now this guy.

I'm getting really tired of reading that Wesley Clark is a war criminal. It's bullshit, unsubstantiated garbage, and makes me want to dismiss everything else a writer I otherwise like has to say.

Bad move on their part, JMHO.

[RichM]

9. It's a matter of definition. If you bomb civilians & infrastructure that's

vital for support of civilian life (water supplies, electric power stations, etc), you've violated one of the Geneva Conventions. That makes you a war criminal. If you use Depleted Uranium weapons, that makes it even worse.

The reason the US refused to join the International Criminal Court is because the administration was well aware that some of its top commanders could potentially be charged with war crimes.

[NV1962]

10. A matter of definition is a matter of interpretation

These are the international instruments dealing with war crimes:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/intlinst.htm#wcrimes

The following is the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Then, there's the issue of Milosevic and especially his spouse, who actively pursued the policy of "human shields" purposefully placing civilians in harms way, willigly and knowingly exposing them to the risk of death.

Not to mention that advance warning was given about the TV station, which was duly noted.

There are "a few" other things that come to mind, but I trade them for two observations: one, Milosevic was warned well in advance of the dire consequences of pursuing the operation in Kosovo, and two, the war operations in Kosovo that unfolded during 78 days are among the "cleanest" in terms of civilian casualties - certainly compared to the butchery (with some 10,000 civilian casualties) in Iraq.

To pretend that war operations on a densely urbanized theater can somehow whirl about with civilian casualties is absurd.

And as to the use of DU: I'd like to see where it is outlawed, not in the least seeing as there are quite a number of NATO partners that have DU munitions in their arsenals, and actually have used it in armed conflict over the past twenty years.

And if you're really interested in leveling charges, take a look at where the buck stops first: unless, of course, you want to posit that the USA is beholden to military control.

[kaitykaity]

11. Much better than I ever could have said it.

I don't believe the charge because as a veteran I do not have an inherent bias that all military action is by its nature a negative. There is a time and a place.

Your last line is perfect--civilian control and all of that.

Regards.

[NV1962]

12. Yes Sir!

Thank you.

(just in case, not seeking or desiring gender clarification: I meant "Sir" in the saluting sense, of course.)

[kaitykaity]

22. I should say "don't call me sir, I work for a living",

but hell, I was enjoying the moment. :evilgrin:

:hi:

[RichM]

13. What does this last sentence mean?

"...take a look at where the buck stops first: unless, of course, you want to posit that the USA is beholden to military control."

- What is the expression "where the buck stops first" doing here? What do you mean by "posit that the USA is beholden to military control"? I don't think the word "beholden" belongs there. You might be raising the question whether or not the US is UNDER military control, but what does that have to do with anything?

As for the rest of it: Thank you for supplying us with links to the 159 articles of the Geneva Convention. Good job. I didn't get the chance to read all 159, but still believe that bombing civilian infrastructure is expressly prohibited. It doesn't make any difference whether Milosevic was a nice man or not.

About DU: I don't think it existed as a form of artillery shell casing, back in 1949-50. So it's not explicitly written into the accords; thus, as you said, it's not "outlawed." It's just a bit of squeamishness, on my part, to feel that a cancer-producing compound with a half-life of 4 billion years shouldn't be used to permanently pollute the landscape of other countries. // I doubt that many NATO partners have used it in the last 20 years, though. That's because no NATO partners have been in any armed conflict in the last 20 years (except in concert with the US in Kosovo & Iraq). Aside from those operations, where do you suppose DU weapons have been used? // If you know of any other NATO countries that have actually used it, please tell me. In that case, I'd probably say they're just as bad as we are.

[NV1962]

18. Google

I suppose you're asking where to find Google? It's here: http://www.google.com

No idea what you mean with most of the rest you mention.

[ixion]

15. it's a matter of definition, unless you happen to be a civillian in a war

zone. Then it's murder, pure and simple, IMO.

[NV1962]

19. War is a bitch

By definition.

[ixion]

20. Right. Then don't whine when you or someone you like is

charged with war crimes.

Needlessly murdering people is not a bitch. It is a crime against humanity, IMO.

[NV1962]

23. Crime is a legal qualifier

With all due respect, I think you're mixing morality with legality; I have no problem with either pacifism or the notion that wars are atrocities, but I do object to loosely extending the terms "war crimes" and "war criminal" to waging wars in general and to all participants in combat, as those terms refer specifically to outlawed conduct in warfare.

In Nuremberg, the revolutionary notion of committing "crimes against peace" was formally introduced, which ultimately found its way in many UN instruments dealing with armed conflict, but in no case is war absolutely framed as universally illegal. That also explains the fact that a purely military entity such as NATO itself is framed in the UN charter.

I think you're bringing up an ancient debate issue, pairing up ius in bello with ius ad bellum ("what is acceptable behavior in wartime" - i.e.: defining war crimes, versus "what are just wars" - i.e.: determining justification for a certain armed conflict.) That debate is practically impossible to "resolve."

Opting for the lesser of moral burdens in the face of war crimes -- i.e.: refusing armed intervention under any circumstance -- may be understandable and historically sadly over-precedented (as in my country of birth, Spain, where eventually 1 million people were sacrificed to "avoid" WWII) but it does not negate its fundamental costly cowardice, nor does it avoid the grievous consequences of doing nothing. Chamberlain is not a proud name in my book.

Finally, I don't appreciate seeing my reasoned responses here qualified as "whining" - just as I don't see merit in arguing that wars are "immoral" by definition without acknowledgment that acts of genocide justify armed intervention - even and especially according to international law. We can and very probably do disagree, but there's no place for inane pejoratives if you expect your position to be respected.

[ixion]

25. fair enough. I'll withdraw the pejorative.

And I do apologize. I meant no disrespect.

However, I will stand by my thesis:
Killing someone who is a) not involved in some military capacity or b) has not agreed in a 'fight to the death' or c) has not directly inflicted harm upon another (self-defense) is murder, plain and simple.

That is to say that I am believe that people are entitled to kill if and only if one of these three conditions are met:

a) They are both involved in a military action. (soldier vs. soldier)

or;

b) They have both agreed that a fight is 'to the death'

or;

c) One is forced to kill another in a blatant case of self-defense. Note: I do NOT consider pre-emption self-defense.

So I see my pacifism as a personal, spiritual choice, and I do not imply that others need follow my beliefs. Where I break with most pacifists is my point (b). If two or more people want to fight to the death, that's fine by me, as long as it doesn't involve innocents.

Lastly, my statement in the subject of my last post was misunderstood. My point was this: You are trying to defend Clark. Fine. But I don't think it is logical to blithely write off civillian casualites with the 'war is a bitch' cliche, and then wonder why people accuse Clark of war crimes. If not war crimes in a legalistic sense of the word, they are crimes against humanity because people who otherwise did not want to die were killed.

Again, this is simply my opinion.

[NV1962]

30. Actually, it's the other way round

When you confuse unintended civilian casualties with war crimes, you lop together war-time equivalents of manslaughter and murder. You really think that's playing legalistic sophistry games? Goodness forbid you ever find out why there is a difference - and I really mean that.

Let's just agree to disagree while agreeing on the premise that all wars are inherently horrendous.

However... You stated the following: "I don't think it is logical to blithely write off civillian casualites with the 'war is a bitch' cliche, and then wonder why people accuse Clark of war crimes."

I think you got it exactly backwards there. Neither Clark himself, nor any level-headed supporter of his will advocate wars as something even remotely resembling a wonderful thing; neither Clark nor any level-headed supporter will state that civilian casualties -- all too often triviliazed as "collateral damage" -- are to be shrugged off.

Again, I think you got it exactly backwards: precisely because Wes Clark (and I venture again, together with any level-headed supporter) realizes that all wars are atrocities, and precisely acknowledging the unpalatable consequences that all wars inevitably entail, Wes Clark sees the use of military force only justified as a last resort.

I don't agree with your statement, because in spite of the fact that people accuse Wes Clark of "war-crimes" he is a staunch advocate of using all available means to avoid wars first. I don't agree with your statement, because the accusation of "war crimes" is at a par with the equally wrong-headed criticism that sought to deny the self-projected assertion that he was an "anti-war" candidate: nobody within the Clark camp and with two brain cells to rub together has ever claimed that he is (was) running on a pacifist ticket.

What is true is that Wes Clark -- like any battle-experienced, intelligent and honest high-ranking soldier will attest -- consistently and openly states that all wars are costly atrocities and therefore should not be started lightly - and most certainly not for narrow domestic political (electoral) purposes; national security should not be abused for narrow political gain. In fact, the Bush administration's blatantly deceptive propaganda in pursuit of an unnecessary, injustified and injustifiable invasion and occupation war is what prompted Wes Clark to run in the first place.

That is why supporters of Wes Clark such as me respond to slight-handed accusations of Wes Clark being a "war criminal" with the acknowledgment of the obvious: yes, war is a bitch. So is racial bigotry, slavery and genocide. Dôh! So what's your point, caller?

You got it exactly backward: when people incorrectly and injustly claim a moral monopoly of the notion that all wars are atrocities, and use that false premise to throw out equally ill-considered accusations of "war criminal" towards people such as Wes Clark, it is at the very least unassailably correct to acknowledge that yes, war is a bitch. Guess what, you're not the only one having that opinion.

And that's the thing with accusing Clark and his supporters that they (we) "blithely write off civillian casualites with the 'war is a bitch' cliche" - it is not only flat out wrong, it is a borderline dishonest misrepresentation that I firmly reject due to its implied premise that "only" pacifists acknowledge the horrendous nature of war. That argument, in essence, I find incredibly arrogant.

That is the reason I took exception. Firefighters and police officers are quite familiar with the dire consequences of fire and crime as well - I hope you're not thinking in analogy that their profession makes them guilty of being arsonists and criminals by mere association with the ugly phenomena they combat...

Added afterwards:

In essence, that is why I strongly object to the line of reasoning followed also by people such as Blum in the article that started this topic: the notion that being "militantly anti-war" is the sole "tough" position, and that therefore defense of intervention to stop genocide is "mush-minded." I'm sorry, it's the other way round: to defend a position which advocates sitting on your hands while a whole people is targeted for destruction, that I find mush-minded - not to say morally corrupt.

[ixion]

32. indeed, all wars are inherently horrendous...

We do, then, agree on that point.

First off, I am not trying to pull off any slight handed accusation. That would imply that I have an hidden agenda on which I base my premise. I'm sorry, but that is simply untrue. I am simply making no semantic distinctions on what defines murder.

Now, according to the dictionary definition of murder, you are correct:

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

The keyword in that definition is unlawful, which inherently implies that murder is not murder if it is 'lawful'. I vehemently disagree with this definition, because it rationalizes State-sponsored killing, which I must say that I find morally corrupt. Moral corruption, though, is par for the course where government and by logical extension, military is concerned.

I do understand your allegorical comparison using premeditated murder and manslaughter. There is a case to be made for that. However that line blurs when applied in a military context. For example: You accidentally kill someone with your car in an accident. You had no intention whatsoever to cause someone else harm, but through some series of events, a death resulted. Now juxtapose this with 'unintended civillian casualties' caused by, say, a cruise missle. A cruise missle is designed to do one thing and one thing only: destroy. There is no utilitarian use for a this thing. It is designed to anihilate. By ordering the launch of this missle, which destroys a target and kills anyone in a certain proximity, you have committed murder (by my definition) because you knowingly launched a destructive device with intent. There is no accident here.

Now, to address your summary. Genocide. In many ways, we are all guilty of that, by proxy of our governments. That does not make it right. This is the primary reason I am against violence as a solution to a situation. This country was founded on genocide of the Native American indian, and yet we failed to learn any lesson. Where were was our military response when China marched into Tibet and slaughtered Tibetan citizens? It's the selectivity, the inconsistency of the response that troubles me in this regard. If we truly want to stop genocide, should we not try to stop all genocide? Why pick and choose? There are many instances in history where this country has stood idly by while a dictatorship murdered thousands of people. Because of this inconsistency, I feel it renders that particular point moot. In reality, if we really want to stop genocide, we should stop using violence and search for other solutions.

The problem with using violence to stop violence is that it never works. It simply breeds more violence. Has the violence stopped in Kosovo? No. Has the violence stopped since we 'liberated' Iraq? No. Violence doesn't work, and that's been proven time and time and time again throughout history.

Simply put, we will not evolve until we move beyond the primal desire to respond to situations by killing, whether that killing is lawfully sanctioned or not.

As far as the fire and police issue goes... well, no, I don't consider firemen arsonists. However, I don't believe the police should be 'lawfully' sanctioned to kill (I don't believe there is such a thing as lawful murder). It's a power that goes straight to the head. Absolute power corrupts. And when a cop has a gun and the government's permission to use it, innocent people will die.

Again, this is an historical fact. Anytime you give permission to a group of people to kill, they will at some point abuse that power, no matter what kind of oversight you may have in place.

So again, I stick by my premise: killing people against their will is murder, no matter how you want to rationalize it.

By the by, this is one of the primary reasons I could not support Clark. I simply don't believe in the military institution. And that, I think, is probably the true crux of our debate. ;-)

[ixion]

14. well, realistically, just about any career military person

could potentially be a war criminal. From a strict interpretation, anyone involved in any way with killing civillians could be brought up on war crimes charges.

But don't listen to me, I'm a pacifist, and believe all murderers should face charges, whether sanctioned by a government or of their own volition. ;-)

[stepnw1f]

16. Diatribe, moral gymnastics...

sounds very cliche. Used way too much. Is an updated list from Newt circulating again?

[Aidoneus]

17. heh

So you think Blum is taking marching orders from Newt..? Yeah, that's it. :eyes:

[stepnw1f]

21. Heh...exactly

I guess my rhetorical statement could be translated that way. I keep hearing complaints from the right that liberals are 'Mush-Minded', liberals use 'diatribe', liberals use 'moral gymnastics', etc to suit their needs. I see this all over the net. Why is that? If anything it's an attempt to soften the Left argument. It reminds me of how grade school kids used to gain the upper hand in most arguments. Those words claims come mainly from Republicans. Very interesting.

[NV1962]

24. Are you really surprised?

In my opinion it's consistent with the Right laying practically exclusive claim to notions such as "patriotism" "family values" and such: a self-projection of "toughness" and "moral courage" as their "unique" qualities, that "contrast" with their ideological adversaries. It's "us against them" provided with with moral flags and uniforms; a consequence of their combined authoritarian bent and preoccupation with superiority.

[Aidoneus]

26. are you at all familiar with Blum's work?

[Aidoneus]

28. kick

:kick:

[Aidoneus]

33. one last kick before it drops off

:kick:

[democracyindanger]

27. Garbage

Pure drivel. Bashing Al Franken for a USO tour? Seriously? That's how he leads his article? And backing up his line of thinking by providing a quote from a rightwing country singer?

What an ass. Counterpunch continues to prove that it's narcissitic diarrhea.

[porkrind]

29. Freeper troll?

Who is Blum? He seems like a Freeper troll.

Unless I'm missing something, I don't agree. I think Franken can support the morale of the individuals in the armed forces without agreeing with the righteousness of their collective mission.

Troops are an obedient tool of the legislative hands that wield them. Individual troops may not agree with their orders, but they are still constrained to obey them.

In fact, I would very much doubt that each and every soldier agrees that they should even be in Iraq. Probably most of think the Iraq conflict is a quagmire and a pointless fiasco.

Also, who cares what Darryl Worley thinks? A right-wing country singer is not exactly an expert in the ethics of war.

[Aidoneus]

31. heh

Read a few more of his works, and you'll see how ridiculous that "he seems like a Freeper troll" sounds..