In response to Kendall Clark Re: [PEN-L:35870] Re: The politics underlying the war
It may be useful to keep a running toll of deaths.
12 allied troops killed in a helicopter crash a day or so ago, (8 british marines, 4 US - probably commandos)
2 US soldiers killed by enemy fire this morning
7 UK - just reported killed in a crash of two UK helicopters this morning.
Ironically most of the allied deaths in this high tech war may be the result of accidents and "friendly fire". They remain entirely relevant for pointing out the disproportionate and reckless use of force, even if you are not an absolute pacifist.
We need to be suspicious and vigilant about distortions in reporting. Media watch has been proved effective and is probably being done by a number of centres - any URL's anyone?
I note what may be a mere coincidence that the two helicopter crashes both got announced early in the morning in London, so it would be old news for the newspapers by the time of the evening print runs.
Also interestingly this morning the BBC gives a different version to the Pentagon which confidently announced the surrender of an entire Iraqi division. This morning the BBC reports the situation may be more complicated: the head officer has surrendered, but the brigades and subunits are only in the process of forming up as instructed to surrender, and it is possible some brigades have not yet surrendered. Presumably no one doubts the final result but it is important to what extent the resistance to surrender is the result of intimidation by the Saddam regime versus genuine patriotism, and the fact that the BBC has contradicted the exuberance of the Pentagon.
The allied toll in the first Gulf war was something like 140, so this could be heading for the high hundreds or into four figures.
Reports of deaths of Iraqi's will be considered to be unreliable propaganda by the hegemonic bloc, but hopefully are still being collated somewhere in the internet. URL again anyone?
Chris Burford London
At 2003-03-21 11:10 -0600, Kendall Clark wrote:
>>>>> "chris" == Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
chris> obviously futile. But as the stories mount of unnecessary chris> civilian deaths and maimings, and of deaths through "friendly chris> fire" and accidents, this propels the relevance of continued chris> protests, against an unjust and inappropriate use of force. Yes chris> even if they find some prisoners in Saddam's jails who have had chris> their tongues cut out, as they promise us, it will still be chris> relevant to campaign against the excessive and inappropriate use chris> of force!
Chris,
But where does that leave us (uh, "the left") when or if such stories don't emerge, either because the Pentagon's (rather brillant, IMO) 'embedding' strategy simply strangles the news before it leaks out or, as seems more likely, there *aren't* any such stories to tell?
It seems possible, at this very early point, that Bush & Co. will get a relatively bloodless win against Hussein, who will be spun as a paper tiger.
In other words, what if Baghdad falls, not with an 'unnecessary' number of civilian deaths, but with none at all? That seems at least possible right now, and if it happens that way, it would seem to seriously undercut what I understand you to be arguing as the basis of an antiwar position.
But perhaps I've misunderstood you? (Reading further, I think I agree with your broader point about national sovereignty, but I oppose this war not on those grounds, but because it's neither necessary nor a matter of last resort. Well, and acquiescing to it seems to me to be acquiescing to the enactment of imperial power -- and that just *feels* wrong.)
Kendall Clark -- Jazz is only what you are. -- Louis Armstrong
