[Vision2020] Iraq Abuse Business As Usual

Fri, 7 May 2004 19:37:02 EDT

--part1_1db.20f1d46f.2dcd779e_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tom and others:

I am not justifying any sort of abuse of anyone anywhere.  I merely point out 
the contradictions inherent in the thinking of the supporters of the War on 
Terror in Iraq, who are morally outraged by the Iraq prison abuse, regarding 
the realities of warfare and methods of gaining intelligence from suspects, 
which is going to involve violations of the Geneva convention, despite all the 
posing and PR that will be trotted out by the powers that be.  Of course they 
want to make the war as palatable as possible for the public, and posing as 
representatives of a superior moral or ethical world view, that does not engage in 
or condone the same reprehensible conduct as the "enemy," is part of this 
propaganda.  

When abuse becomes public and is widely reported, then someone must be found 
to take the blame, to maintain the image that our superior moral and ethical 
world view as a nation will not allow such conduct to continue.  However, it 
will continue.  The realities of warfare and intelligence gathering dictate 
this, though now there will be better security to assure it does not go public as 
blatantly as this fracas. 

I was also taking jabs at the linking of Iraq to the War on Terror, 
suggesting that abuse of Iraq prisoners is justified to find those mysterious Iraq 
WMDs, which I don't think exist anyway, but that supporters of the Iraq war 
continue to assert may be found!  Certainly, if abuse of some "Iraq terrorists" led 
to information uncovering weapons that were aimed to kill thousands of US 
citizens, how many Americans would justify the abuse?  Quite a large number I 
think. 

If photos like these Iraq prison photos had been released, let us say, from 
Afghanistan a few months after 9/11, there would not be the same moral outrage 
we are seeing now.  There would be more of a feeling that the "terrorists" 
deserved it, and that such treatment is unfortunate but necessary to gain 
intelligence to protect US citizens and soldiers from terrorism.  If a terrorist 
attack in the US happened tomorrow and was linked to agents from Iraq, suddenly 
you would see sympathy for the abused Iraq prisoners dwindle.

Sometimes I think the only rational ideology to stop war is total Pacifism, 
though this view is problematic when confronted with the urgent necessity to 
stop atrocities (What about Rwanda? We let 500,000+ be slaughtered.  Oh, right, 
little oil there.) when military force is the only option.  I do not think 
Iraq qualified as a case where military force was the only option.

However, the US will be in Iraq 50 years from now (or whenever) when the 
world's oil reserves start to dwindle and the nations who control the world's oil 
will be in the drivers seat.  This I think is the primary reason we invaded.  
Not a view to quick oil profits in the short term.  A long term view of 
gaining control over world oil resources given the reality they are finite.  This 
crisis point in the functioning of the US and global economy, when we use 
military force as a strategic option to take middle east oil if we must, has been on 
the table for a long time.  The War on Terror provided an excellent pretext 
to do it now.

Ted Moffett

--part1_1db.20f1d46f.2dcd779e_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><HTML> 
Tom and others: 
 
I am not justifying any sort of abuse of anyone anywhere.&nbsp; I merely poi=
nt out the contradictions inherent in the thinking of the supporters of the=20=
War on Terror in Iraq, who are morally outraged by the Iraq prison abuse, re=
garding the realities of warfare and methods of gaining intelligence from su=
spects, which is going to involve violations of the Geneva convention, despi=
te all the posing and PR that will be trotted out by the powers that be.&nbs=
p; Of course they want to make the war as palatable as possible for the publ=
ic, and posing as representatives of a superior moral or ethical world view,=
 that does not engage in or condone the same reprehensible conduct as the "e=
nemy," is part of this propaganda.&nbsp; 
 
When abuse becomes public and is widely reported, then someone must be found=
 to take the blame, to maintain the image that our superior moral and ethica=
l world view as a nation will not allow such conduct to continue.&nbsp; Howe=
ver, it will continue.&nbsp; The realities of warfare and intelligence gathe=
ring dictate this, though now there will be better security to assure it doe=
s not go public as blatantly as this fracas. 
 
I was also taking jabs at the linking of Iraq to the War on Terror, suggesti=
ng that abuse of Iraq prisoners is justified to find those mysterious Iraq W=
MDs, which I don't think exist anyway, but that supporters of the Iraq war c=
ontinue to assert may be found!&nbsp; Certainly, if abuse of some "Iraq terr=
orists" led to information uncovering weapons that were aimed to kill thousa=
nds of US citizens, how many Americans would justify the abuse?&nbsp; Quite=20=
a large number I think. 
 
If photos like these Iraq prison photos had been released, let us say, from=20=
Afghanistan a few months after 9/11, there would not be the same moral outra=
ge we are seeing now.&nbsp; There would be more of a feeling that the "terro=
rists" deserved it, and that such treatment is unfortunate but necessary to=20=
gain intelligence to protect US citizens and soldiers from terrorism.&nbsp;=20=
If a terrorist attack in the US happened tomorrow and was linked to agents f=
rom Iraq, suddenly you would see sympathy for the abused Iraq prisoners dwin=
dle. 
 
Sometimes I think the only rational ideology to stop war is total Pacifism,=20=
though this view is problematic when confronted with the urgent necessity to=
 stop atrocities (What about Rwanda? We let 500,000+ be slaughtered.&nbsp; O=
h, right, little oil there.) when military force is the only option.&nbsp; I=
 do not think Iraq qualified as a case where military force was the only opt=
ion. 
 
However, the US will be in Iraq 50 years from now (or whenever) when the wor=
ld's oil reserves start to dwindle and the nations who control the world's o=
il will be in the drivers seat.&nbsp; This I think is the primary reason we=20=
invaded.&nbsp; Not a view to quick oil profits in the short term.&nbsp; A lo=
ng term view of gaining control over world oil resources given the reality t=
hey are finite.&nbsp; This crisis point in the functioning of the US and glo=
bal economy, when we use military force as a strategic option to take middle=
 east oil if we must, has been on the table for a long time.&nbsp; The War o=
n Terror provided an excellent pretext to do it now. 
 
Ted Moffett</HTML>

--part1_1db.20f1d46f.2dcd779e_boundary--