...who wrote this?
> -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 3:39 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: 1 View of USA from UK > > > Here's a great retort to that "piece" of work: > > It's another dispatch from the alternate universe where the > FBI puts the screws to newspapers that run too many anti-war > letters, where Bush appears on TV to lead us all in > Communion, and a stunned and cowed population shuffles off to > the Gruel Factories while top-hatted plutocrats lean from > their SUVs and spit thick brown wads of sputum at the losers > of life's lottery. Look: reasoned, principled objections to > the war are necessary; we need good debate. But it's time > that the newspapers of the world just say no to the latest > chunk of recycled fatuity just because it's penned by a > recognizable name. Better a thoughtful disemboweling of the > post-Saddam strategy or lack thereof by Herbert Z. Nobody > than another bloody gout of half-digested Quiche Clich� by > someone whose name we remember from a tired trawl through an > airport bookstore. > > I'm pretty sure Stephen King is skeptical about the war, for > example. I know his politics. But he hasn't made the leap so > common to others in the scribbling, warbling and gesturing > arts - he doesn't think we're all dying to hear his > prescriptions for Middle East foreign policy. Oh, interview > him on the matter and he might pop off, but I can't imagine > him sitting down, firing up a Winston Light, and telling > himself that this 1200 word essay will change the world, > because people will think: hey, it's Steven KING talking! He > wrote "The Stand," and his fictional account of the > repercussions of biological weapons programs gives him a > unique perspective. Let's lend an ear! > > I wouldn't have brought this up at all, except for one word > bobbing in the torrent of LeCarre's invective. See if you can > spot it. The paragraph is typical for the genre, as it gives > the impression of someone in the grip of a hysterical > delusion, attempting to shove handfuls of imaginary rats down > the sink drain: > > The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, > but it was he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the > Bush junta would still be trying to explain such tricky > matters as how it came to be elected in the first place; > Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its > reckless disregard for the world's poor, the ecology and a > raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They > might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in > its continuing disregard for UN resolutions. > > The word isn't "Enron." (Yes, without the Iraq situation, > we'd all be transfixed by the endless Enron story.) It's > "ecology." Let's strip away the intervening words and boil it > down: "Without bin Laden, the Bush junta would still be > trying to explain such tricky matters as its reckless > disregard for the ecology." > > This word stuck out for me because of a piece I read over > supper. A little profile in the WSJ about the euphoniously > named Azzam Alwash, an Iraqi immigrant to the United States > who wants to restore the great marsh that once stretched > between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. It was an ancient > swamp dotted with communities that lived in the sort of > peaceable, sustainable style so beloved by the anti-Globos: > people made their houses from reeds, for example. > Unfortunately for the residents, and for the millions of > birds that stopped off at the marsh on their migrations, and > for all the other countless details of this ecosystem, the > rebel Shiites used the swamp as a hideout. > > So Saddam had it drained. > > How? Why, he commanded the construction of a 350-mile long > diversion called "The Saddam River." The WSJ article goes on: > "This project was followed by even larger hydroengineering > schemes: the Mother of all Battles River in 1994, and the > Fidelity to the Leader Canal in 1997." > > I googled until I could google no more. I found no pieces by > John LeCarre denouncing Saddam's destruction of a gigantic > ancient ecosystem. I found a few LeCarre references to Kyoto, > where he worries that criticism of the American viewpoint is > being oppressed. And that is utterly typical: specific, > large-scale environmental atrocities are less important than > the theoretical consequences of American refusal to adopt the > Kyoto protocols. Saddam is a local evil, and the world is > full of those; such is life. But America is a global evil - > and hence it cannot be allowed to remove a local evil, > because that would legitimize the existence of something far > more pernicious, i.e., us. Le Carre says as much: > > I'm dead against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam's > downfall - just not on Bush's terms and not by his methods. > > In other words: when the people of Iraq are liberated, Le > Carre will be horribly conflicted. He would have sat in a > French cafe in WW2 and spit at the partisans who worked with > the Allies, because their armies practiced segregation. > Better to be slaves under pure simple evil than free men > liberated by hypocrites. > > Back to the swamps. There's a website devoted to the cause of > helping the Marsh Arabs, as they're known. Be warned, it's > run by absolutely crazy people who think that nothing will > change unless Saddam is removed from power. Personally, I > think it's a plot by US heavy construction equipment > companies, who will get lots of money when the international > community starts work on reclaiming the marshes. And need I > mention what those Caterpillar trucks will run on? OIL! > > Curious whether Le Carre had exploded in a similar spasm of > righteousness during the 1998 escalation, I googled Le Carre > Iraq 1998. Interesting stuff. From an Australian journal, a > long piece on why inspections wouldn't work. Check out this > section on the efficacy of the inspection process. I've > boldfaced the interesting words. > > Traditionally, the ubiquitous minders would discover where > the UN inspectors were heading and ample warning was given. > This time the inspectors were prepared. "I forbade all > operational discussions on internal phones in the hotel or > even in public places or rooms," says Taylor. "Important > conversations were scribbled on scraps of paper and shown to > the person concerned. All very Le Carre , and all very > necessary, believe me." > > Taylor eventually got to his man, a university professor and > expert on ricin, a favoured toxin for individual > assassination. He also eventually uncovered the professor's > hidden papers (some tucked inside old magazines in an outer > office), which included documents showing ricin research > results on animals, its efficacy as a weapons agent and > details of the production process. The papers also revealed > that the biological section of the Iraqi Scientific Research > Centre, a civilian program, was involved in support of the > military's biological weapons program. Nothing better reveals > the extent of Iraqi deceit than the saga of the missing > growth medium. Growth medium is the dry nourishment required > to feed deadly bacteria to reproduce them. In 1995, David > Kelly, then the senior British UNSCOM inspector, met an > Israeli intelligence officer in a safe apartment on First > Avenue and 38th Street in New York. The Israeli handed over > documents proving that British and German companies had > exported 32 tonnes of growth medium for bacteria to the > Iraqis - substantially more than could ever have been > required for normal civilian use. Only one conclusion could be drawn. > > (Inspectors) established that the Iraqis had used 18 tonnes > of the medium for growing substantial amounts of anthrax and > botulinum toxin. When the final count was done, the > inspectors found seven tonnes unaccounted for. It is still missing. > > "They say it's been stolen but we know for sure that's just > another lie," says Barton. "It's good for growing bacteria > for years to come. My guess? They'll use it for anthrax." > > > Then I found this, which proves Le Carre been daft for some > time now. It's on a website that comes up as "Ocean Press > Publishers of books on Cuba, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Latin > America, Social Change and the CIA." The article is dated Oct > 13, 2001, and honest to God, it's called "We Have Already Lost." > > "Mr. bin Laden in his cave must be rubbing their hands in > glee as we embark on the very process that terrorists of > their stamp so relish: as we hastily double up our police and > intelligence forces and award them greater powers, as we put > basic civil liberties on hold and curtail press freedom, > impose news blackouts and secret censorship, spy on ourselves > and, at our worst, violate mosques and hound luck-less > citizens in our streets because we are afraid of the colour > of their skin." > > The worst thing we can do is violate mosques. Which, of > course, we'll start to do any day now. (The French are > already on the job, but Le Carre - as befits an Englishman > who trades his name for the gritty snail-shell of a Gallic > nom de plume - doesn't seem to notice.) (Hat tip: LFG) In any > case, I don't think there was a good deal of gleeful > hand-rubbing in Osama's bolthole towards the end. At the end > of the piece, Le Carre faults Bush for his constant > God-bothering, and huffs: > > Mr. Bush, keep God out of this. To imagine God fights wars is > to credit Him with he worst follies of mankind. God, if we > know anything about Him, which I don't profess to, prefers > effective food drops, dedicated medical teams, comfort and > good tents for the homeless and bereaved, and without > strings, a decent acceptance of our past sins and a readiness > to put hem right. He prefers us less greedy, less arrogant, > less evangelical, and less dismissive of life's losers. > > Odd how someone who doesn't profess to know anything about > God ends the paragraph speaking on His behalf. In any case, > here's what the other side has to say. Some boring stats on > US assistance to Afghanistan: > > TOTAL U.S. Government Humanitarian Assistance for 2002 - $186,545,775 > > TOTAL U.S. Government Humanitarian Assistance for 2001 - $183,107,625 > > TOTAL U.S. Government Humanitarian Assistance to Afghanistan > for 2001/2002 - $369,653,400 > > This is about three times the amount of money the Federal > Government spends on the National Endowment for the Arts. Now > comes a big cut & paste job from a government site; believe > or don't believe. I know enough people working for agencies > of this nature, so I believe. Anyway, here's the > US-government supplied data. If you want some visual info: > > http://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan/timeline.html > http://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan/before_and_after.html > > What the site says > > Fact Sheet > U.S. Agency for International Development > Washington, DC > September 6, 2002 > > Afghan Humanitarian Relief and Reconstruction > > Afghanistan was the number one recipient of U.S. humanitarian > assistance before September 11, and America continues to lead > the international community today. Poverty, famine, a > devastating drought, and years of war and civil strife have > created a humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan , which has been > aggravated by years of Taliban misrule. The people of the > United States, through USAID, have responded. > > Humanitarian Aid > > -- Funds. The President pledged $360 million to help the > people of Afghanistan . Since October 1, 2001 the U.S. > Government has already provided more than $420 million in > assistance, more than $220 million is through USAID. > -- Food . The United States provided 80 percent of all food > aid to U.N. World Food Program (WFP) for Afghanistan last > fiscal year, and already more than 50 percent this year. Our > goal is to deliver 300,000 metric tons (MT) of food aid to > the people of Afghanistan through the spring. (52,000 MT of > food a month will feed approximately six million people.) > -- Supplies. To protect people from the weather, USAID is > providing wool blankets and quilts; shelter kits, plastic > sheeting and winterized tents. We're also distributing > mattresses, clothes, stoves, cooking sets, firewood, coal, > lanterns and water containers. > -- Medicine and healthcare. We've provided medical kits and > funds for health centers and mobile clinics. We're sponsoring > public heath education and programs on hygiene, obstetrics, > maternal and childcare, and malnutrition. We're employing > trained personnel to conduct educational outreach on basic > health and nutrition, especially to women. We're helping > expectant mothers, training local birth attendants and > funding the distribution of vitamins and the immunization of > young children. > -- Communications. Through the International Organization for > Migration, we're distributing over 30,000 radios that allow > Afghans to hear special broadcast bulletins concerning food > distribution, security, health care and other information > relevant to displaced people. > -- Transport. We've airlifted commodities from Pakistan and > Italy to ensure there was no break in the Central Asian > pipelines into Afghanistan , and funded the purchase of > vehicles -- some equipped with snow plows -- to speed the > delivery of supplies into villages. > > > > > Finally, this little quote from a piece Le Carre wrote for the Nation: > > Do governments run countries anymore? Do presidents run > governments? In the cold war, the right side lost but the > wrong side won, said a Berlin wit. > > Perhaps it's amusing in the original German. > > But. I remember the Soviet dissident we put up in our house > in '83; he'd been imprisoned for ungood wrongthink, and > injected with a wide variety of chemicals to pacify his > anti-Soviet tendancies. Contrast: I have a newspaper column > in a quasi-major metropolitan daily. I could, if I wished, > spend the next year railing against the Bush administration, > three times a week. Nothing would happen to me. Nothing. My > editors would not complain.The publisher wouldn't take me > aside. The guvmint would not come calling. It would never > occur to me that I'd suffer any professional repercussions > from changing my happy-fun column into a 24-7-365 anti-war > diatribe - and if you think I'm mistaken, trust me on this: > you have no idea what you're talking about. > > That's life in the "side that won." The wrong side, as a "wit" had it. > > I'd mail LeCarre all the copies of his books I owned, postage > due - if I hadn't dropped them off at the Salvation Army the > last time we moved. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
