|
CounterPunch
March 13,
2003
A Glossary of Warmongering
by PAUL de ROOIJ
"War is obsolete"
-- Anatol Rapoport
The propaganda leading up to wars debases language.
In an effort to counter the inevitable prostitution of language,
and to perhaps become aware of a different reality, a glossary
of commonly post-Gulf War abused terms is presented below. It
is an analogous development to the "Glossary
of Occupation", which was meant to clarify the abused
terms found in the Israeli-centric discourse.
There is one specific limitation to this
glossary; it only discusses terms generally abused in the US-centric
discourse. Now, Americans don't want to talk about what they
have been doing to the Iraqis, and therefore there is a tendency
for there to be NO words to describe what they do. Americans
have no interest in describing, let alone coining terms for the
Iraqi condition. For example, there are no words for the myriad
cancer patients who don't have the requisite medicines. There
are no words for the huge areas of Iraq polluted by depleted
uranium bombs, and so on. Similarly, the media discourse has
no words to describe the Iraqi condition because it has adopted
a US-centric point of reference. For this reason, defining terms
in a glossary is not satisfactory; it only looks at the glaring
problems, the instances where there is a descriptive word.
Abused Terms
Translation
Collateral damage: Civilians
killed--mentioned after the war.
Issue not arising before a war, and all references to civilians
killed during "no-fly-zone bombing runs" are vigorously
denied. When you hear: "Accidental deaths caused by a bomb"
ponder what Joan Baez said during her trip to Vietnam: "there
is no such thing as an accidental bomb".
Cost of war:
Diversion from profits
of war. People moan
about costs, but don't look at the profits.
Who cares about a few bucks here and there, just look at the
profits gushing forth in a year's time. If the second UN resolution
passes, then get others to pay for the war. Remember Japan was
forced to pay $15bn to cover the expenses of the first Gulf War.
France and Germany may be shaken down in a similar fashion this
time around.
"And consider too the sheer, unadorned
hubris of men like Wolfowitz and his assistants. Asked to testify
to a largely somnolent Congress about the war's consequences
and costs they are allowed to escape without giving any concrete
answers, which effectively dismisses the evidence of the army
chief of staff who has spoken of a military occupation force
of 400,000 troops for 10 years at a cost of almost a trillion
dollars." -
--Edward Said, "Who
is in Charge?", March 2003
Democracy:
A useful dictatorship
of the remaining banana republic.
"once big powers start to dream
of regime change -- a process already begun by the Perles and
Wolfowitzs of this country -- there is simply no end in sight.
Isn't it outrageous that people of such a dubious caliber actually
go on blathering about bringing democracy, modernization, and
liberalization to the Middle East? God knows that the area needs
it, as so many Arab and Muslim intellectuals and ordinary people
have said over and over. But who appointed these characters as
agents of progress anyway? And what entitles them to pontificate
in so shameless a way when there are already so many injustices
and abuses in their own country to be remedied? It's particularly
galling that Perle, about as unqualified a person as it is imaginable
to be on any subject touching on democracy and justice, should
have been an election adviser to Netanyahu's extreme right-wing
government during the period 1996-9, in which he counseled the
renegade Israeli to scrap any and all peace attempts, to annex
the West Bank and Gaza, and try to get rid of as many Palestinians
as possible. This man now talks about bringing democracy to the
Middle East, and does so without provoking the slightest objection
from any of the media pundits who politely (abjectly) quiz him
on national television." -
- Edward Said, A monument to hypocrisy,
Al Ahram, Feb. 13, 2003.
"Democracy traduced and betrayed,
democracy celebrated but in fact humiliated and trampled on by
a tiny group of men who have simply taken charge of this republic
as if it were nothing more than, what, an Arab country? It is
right to ask who is in charge since clearly the people of the
United States are not properly represented by the war this administration
is about to loose on a world already beleaguered by too much
misery and poverty to endure more."
-- Edward Said "Who is in Charge?"
March 2003.
Depleted uranium aka du ammo: Weapons
of indefinite destruction.
"Under the economic embargo imposed
by the United Nations Security Council, now in its 14th year,
Iraq is denied equipment and expertise to decontaminate its battlefields
from the 1991 Gulf War.
"Professor Doug Rokke, the US Army
physicist responsible for cleaning up Kuwait, told me: 'I am
like many people in southern Iraq. I have 5,000 times the recommended
level of radiation in my body. Most of my team are now dead.
We face an issue to be confronted by people in the West, those
with a sense of right and wrong: first, the decision by the US
and Britain to use a weapon of mass destruction: depleted uranium.
When a tank fired its shells, each round carried over 4,500g
of solid uranium. What happened in the Gulf was a form of nuclear
warfare.
'In 1991, a United Kingdom Atomic Energy
Authority document reported that if 8 per cent of the depleted
uranium fired in the Gulf War was inhaled, it could cause '500,000
potential deaths'. In the promised attack on Iraq, the United
States will again use depleted uranium, and so will Britain,
regardless of its denials.
-- John Pilger, "Inside Iraq--The
Tragedy of a People Betrayed", The Independent, February
23, 2003
Dual Use:
Justification to
reject large proportion of Iraqi requests for imports.
While food and medicines are technically
exempt, the Sanctions Committee has frequently vetoed and delayed
requests for baby food, agricultural equipment, heart and cancer
drugs, oxygen tents, X-ray machines. Sixteen heart and lung machines
were put 'on hold' because they contained computer chips. A fleet
of ambulances was held up because their equipment included vacuum
flasks, which keep medical supplies cold; vacuum flasks are designated
'dual use' by the Sanctions Committee, meaning they could possibly
be used in weapons manufacture. Cleaning materials, such as chlorine,
are 'dual use', it seems, considering the frequency of their
appearance on the list of 'holds'.
As of October 2001, 1,010 contracts for
humanitarian supplies, worth $3.85bn, were 'on hold' by the Sanctions
Committee. They included items related to food, health, water
and sanitation, agriculture and education. This has now risen
to goods worth more than $5bn. This is rarely reported in the
West.
-- John Pilger, "Inside Iraq--The
Tragedy of a People Betrayed", The Independent, February
23, 2003 [NB: this is a reprinted chapter from a book
published before SCR1409]
Since SCR1409 (14 May 2002), the Sanctions
Committee only deliberates on items on the Goods Review List.
The vast majority of goods have always been given import licenses,
but often one or two components being held up and would scupper
the effectiveness of the permitted imports (e.g., if essential
tech components of a water treatment plant are held up, then
the percentage of holds is less relevant than their nature).
Evidence:
Any rotten factoid
to prove Iraq is evil. An unfinished
PhD thesis written by a graduate student was used to prove that
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Most documents used as
evidence date from 1991--hardly relevant in the current context.
No attempt was made to cover up the plagiarism or the deceit.
Failure to comply: Foregone
conclusion: Iraq will never be able to live up to the US's high
standards. US tactics: force Iraq
to do something that will most likely lead to an Iraqi rejection.
If Iraq complies nonetheless, then change the standards or objective.
No matter what it does, "Saddam has failed to comply, over
and over and over again."
Freedom fries:
the US House of Representatives
cafeteria's new name for french fries; (ditto french toast).
Gulf War syndrome: Gulf
War veterans who were victims of US chemical or nuclear weapons.
All efforts by the US and UK Defense
establishments were made to stall investigations into the causes
of this syndrome afflicting thousands of veterans--about 6% of
veterans. The likeliest cause is immune system damage due to
exposure to the radioactivity emanating from depleted uranium
weapons. Other weapons systems are also thought to have caused
serious disorders. Will the weapons causing this syndrome be
proscribed during the next war? Answer: No.
A cause for a disease that is not usually
discussed because one may possibly wonder what happened to the
Iraqi people.
Gulf War II:
US-Iraq War.
Iraqi Opposition: Iraqi
opportunists on the US payroll. The
head of this group, Mr. Chalabi, was on the run from Jordanian
law because of a massive fraud perpetrated there. He has since
been magically pardoned.
Justification for war: Lies. There are many reasons: Oil, arms industry,
deflect attention from political scandals, deflect attention
from nose-diving economy, Israel [oops, can't mention this one],
protect the hegemony of the US dollar, create another arms race
Of course, these reasons are too crass, and must instead refer
to the threat of WMD or making Iraq safe for democracy.
Moral Case:
The morality thing.
[Another] thing hasn't been reassuring.
That was his [Blair] seeming to discover a week ago, after some
months of ardent campaigning and presumably reflecting on Iraq,
that there was a moral case he could make -- presumably about
the right thing to do. It was about possible or probable effects
on Iraqis themselves of leaving Saddam in power. That raises
a question. What kind of case did Mr. Blair think he was making
in connection with the war before then?
-- Ted Honderich, Killing
in Defense of Ideology, CounterPunch, March 5, 2003
Neocons:
"Chicken hawks"- Ralph Nader. Neo-Likudnik right-wing warmongering
politicians. The "intellectual" progenitors of war
plans.
Neutralizing agents: If
we use them, it is OK. It is no secret
that the US plans extensive use of chemical agents to "neutralize"
the enemy. Never mind that this is in breach of Chemical Biological
Warfare treaties. If Iraq were to possess, let alone use, such
weapons then it would be chastised for using weapons of mass
destruction. In the hands of the US military, this is another
matter. Ample supplies of CS and stinging gases have been produced
for the US military. However once these gases are spread, then
can people run away? If not, then it could count as a war crime.
"I would not hesitate to state that
the spraying of CS from the air--which is an action entirely
impossible to control--and the imposition of a curfew after its
wide use, should be thought of as a war crime."
-- Prof. Israel Shahak, AIC, Jan. 5,
1991
New Europe:
The neo-vassals. European governments willing to subvert democracy
to play second fiddle to the Americans.
"What I say to France and Germany--and
all my other European Union colleagues--is take care. Because
just as America helps to define and influence our politics, so
what we do in Europe helps to define and influence American politics.
We will reap a whirlwind if we push the US into a unilateralist
position."
-- UK (New Europe) Foreign Minister,
Jack Straw.
A poodle's argument: Is he saying that
if we don't play along with the US, then it may carry on its
unilateralist tendencies without European participation? The
fact that the US is undermining post-war legal framework and
30+ multilateral agreements should be the basis to shunt the
US. The US already has taken a unilateralist position--Europe
will not change this into "multilateral" by sycophantically
coddling up to it. Europe is the principal countervailing power
to the US, but it is a role which some don't want it to assume.
No fly zone:
A unilateral demarcation
imposed by the US. The "no fly
zone" has no legal basis, and was never approved by the
UN.
I made two trips last month into the
'no-fly zone' created by the U.S. with Britain and France in
southern Iraq. Actually it would be better named the 'only we
fly' zone or the 'we bomb' zone. 'We' refers to the United States
who does almost all of the flying and bombing (France pulled
out years ago, and Britain is largely a nominal participant).
-
-Thorne Anderson, journalism professor
and photojournalist
Nothing against the Iraqi people: We'll
massacre them, but it is not personal.
If the strategy is to "shock and awe", then the interests
of the Iraqi people can hardly be expected to be taken into account.
I read recently a statement by a Pentagon
official about the impending war on Iraq: 'There will not be
safe place in Baghdad.' Well, that is interesting. Five million
people live in Baghdad 'There will not be a safe place in Baghdad.'
I thought you were only going to bomb military targets, then
there should be safe places where there are no military targets.
No, 'there will be no safe place in Baghdad.'
-- Howard Zinn, speech given at New School
University, Feb. 2003
Oil:
America's Oil --
of course! The Marines used to fight
to keep the American banana companies safe. Doesn't it sound
a bit more glamorous to have the Marines fight to keep America's
oil safe? Just wait, these folks will get the Exxon-Mobil medal
for valor.
Old Europe:
France and Germany. If you aren't with the US, then it will conjure
deprecating statements. "France is no longer our ally",
"At a political level, Donald Rumsfeld was making it brutally
clear to Europeans that the sole superpower will not pay much
attention to what they think."...
Permanent war:
The war on terrorism
entails endless wars. Iraq now, Iran
tomorrow, Syria, Libya The wish list is updated weekly by Ariel
Sharon.
Preemptive War aka: preemptive defense: A
doctrine that ratifies war without cause, without end.
[if] the US wages a war against Iraq,
then it will be violating one of the most basic principles of
the UN Charter, not just a Security Council resolution, but the
UN Charter. [The UN Charter] makes it clear that it is not legal,
it is not legitimate, it is not acceptable to go to war against
another country unless you have been attacked. You can only engage
in war if it is for self-defense. You can say whatever you want
about Iraq [] but Iraq has not presently attacked or threatened
anybody. Unless you think you ought to attack a country because
some day it may threaten you. Well, that is a prescription for
endless violence.
-- Howard Zinn, speech given at New School
University, Feb. 2003
Prime Minister Blair: Poodle,
aka English poodle. Long tradition
of British prime ministers to ingratiate themselves to the Americans.
Prime Minister Thatcher established a precedent and was called
a "lap dog", although less kind commentators insisted
she was a lap bitch.
Regime:
US Enemy du jour. Bush eloquently stated: "you are either
with us or against us." If you are with America, then you
are a democracy. If a country is not sure, then the country is
demoted to a regime. NB: the dictionary definition of regime
implies no negative connotation.
Regime change:
Region change. The real objective of the warmongers is to redraw
maps and alter the power configuration of the entire region.
A rationale for war proffered early on, but thought too crass
to sell the war. It was quickly replaced by the "he has
weapons of mass destruction" rationale.
Saddam:
Personalizing the
enemy.
Powell also personalized the alleged
Iraqi prevarication. Instead of highlighting Iraqi mendacity,
he always sought to personalize it as "Saddam's lies".
This construct suggests that the US is only after Saddam, and
that "one bullet" would do the trick as Ari Fleischer
suggested some months ago. However, at the same time that the
US is demonizing Saddam Hussein as an individual, it has been
made abundantly clear that the war against Iraq is going to be
massive and devastating. If Powell really was only going after
Saddam Hussein, then the current war would seem to be unnecessary--a
mere assassination is needed. Instead, the war that is being
prepared will certainly harm millions of people in the area.
This is an admission that Powell would not like to make--millions
of people around the world would object. A rather transparent
propaganda ploy was used to present the conflict as focusing
on one demon--thus diminishing the implications of the horrors
that actually await the region.
-- Paul de Rooij, Where
are the incubators?, CounterPunch, Feb. 6, 03.
Sanctions:
A proven weapon of
mass destruction. The US instigated
sanctions implemented via the UN. The sanctions have made of
Iraq, a modern developed society before the war, into a country
rivaling Congo in terms of socio-economic statistics.
In response to a question about the effects
of sanctions where an estimated 500,000 Iraqis died due to its
impact, former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, famously
said: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we
think the price is worth it."
Denying Iraq replacement parts to fix
its water sanitation and purification systems is a form of bacteriological
warfare. Contaminated water is the main contributor to massive
increase in child mortality post Gulf War. NB: the US-dominated
UN sanctions program has not allowed the repair and rebuilding
of these systems. At the same time that water borne diseases
stalk the population, the US denies Iraq access to important
medicines.
Hey, this can't happen anymore, now we
have smart sanctions!
Security Council Resolution: UN-sponsored
declaration of war. Resolution crafted
so that the guaranteed outcome is one suitable to the US, in
this case war. It turns the purpose of the UN--to avoid wars--on
its head.
Shock & awe:
Mass murder.
the indiscriminate murder of civilians.
-- Chris Hedges, Democracy Now, Feb.
27, 2003
"Recent statement by Pentagon official:
'the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight'.
That was the kind of language used to justify the bombing of
Dresden, Frankfurt, Hamburg and other civilian areas. That was
the language used in Vietnam to justify the bombing of villages.
The objective is to destroy the morale of these people. They
use words like 'shock and awe'. It sounds like terrorism to me."
- Howard Zinn, speech given at New School
University, Feb. 2003
Smart weapons: Yet another murder implement. These
weapons are only so smart as the people that order their launch,
and that makes it "at most as smart as Bush". This
is hardly reassuring.
Video feeds are the main improvement
in the newest generation weapons. Improving the video show generated
by these weapons was seemingly considered of utmost importance.
These weapons should be better known as smart multimedia weapons.
Softening up Iraq: The
war already started. Twelve year
long campaign of relentless bombing of Iraq. Supposedly, most
targets were air defense systems threatening "coalition"
airplanes. In reality, a useful area for all sorts of training
exercises utilizing both live and dummy bombs. Concrete-filled
bombs have been thrown in civilian areas, including schools.
(www.ccmep.org/usbombingwatch/2003.htm)
Iraq is expected to disarm while at the
same time the US is "softening up" Iraq.
Stability in the region aka making
the region safe for democracy:
Making the area safe
for "our" and Israeli interests.
Not necessarily in that order.
Terrorist linkage: Demonizing
an opponent. Iraq had nothing to
do with 9-11, but strenuous efforts are made to make the linkage.
"Saddam funds Hamas", "a suspected Al Qaeda operative
went for medical treatment in Baghdad", that is about it.
NB: The number of Iraqis involved in 9/11 equals zero.
UN:
A moribund organization
meant to either do what the Americans tell it to do or else it
is expected to shut up.
UN inspections:
A meant-to-fail futile
exercise. Threatening war with a
massive build-up, and expecting full disarmament compliance and
prying by a hostile UN inspection team is contradictory. No statement
by Hans Blix has been issued on the continued bombing of Iraqi
positions while the inspections were supposed to be going on.
UN Resolutions:
Power projections. Rules only meant to work when the US wants them
to. Israel has ignored 64 UN resolutions (with US support), yet
this is not a problem. But of course, the UN resolutions were
written referent to another chapter of the UN Charter! (chapter
VI as opposed to chapter VII) Ah, these tricky lawyers.
Voila Moment:
Military wishful
thinking.
At the Pentagon they call it the Voila
Moment. That's when Iraqi soldiers and civilians, with bombs
raining down on Baghdad, suddenly scratch their heads and say
to themselves: 'These bombs aren't really meant to kill me and
my family, they are meant to free us from an evil dictator!'
At that point, they thank Uncle Sam, lower their weapons, abandon
their posts, and rise up against Saddam Hussein. Voila!
-- Naomi Klein, "Put away the cuddly
toys. Now it's time to get tough", The Guardian, March 3,
2003
War:
Massacre. Given the imbalance of forces and technology,
it is likely that the Iraqi army will be decimated.
[Khokhlov] What human losses could Iraq
suffer?
[Slipchenko] Very considerable ones.
Since the Americans are planning to physically annihilate the
Iraqi army, I reckon that at least 500,000 people will be killed.
This will be a very bloody war.
-- Russian Expert Predicts 500,000 Iraqi
Dead in War Designed To Test Weapons Rossiyskaya Gazeta in Russian,
Feb. 22, 2003.
Detailed documentation
on Iraqi casualty estimates.
We must do something: Argument leveled against the anti-war movement.
It doesn't mean that we have to massacre them to save them.
Mr. Blair says we can attack Iraq because
if we don't, Saddam will be free to do terrible things to his
own people. This is about as alarming as an argument can get.
There is no parity between our doing something with the dead
certainty of killing and maiming thousands, and not doing it
with only some probability that some people will suffer. Saddam
may not have changed, but his world sure has.
-- Ted Honderich, Killing in Defense
of Ideology, CounterPunch, March 5, 2003
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD): Useful excuse to justify war. Despite the fact
that reputable sources indicate that Iraqi chemical, bacteriological
or nuclear capabilities are not a threat, it serves as a useful
excuse for war.
Yes, Iraq at some point had chemical
and bacteriological weapons. We know that because the countries
selling that technology were primarily the US and UK. When the
weapons were sold, Iraq was our bulwark against Iranian revolution.
This rationale was quickly forgotten.
Note: Check out the website of Campaign
Against Sanctions on Iraq. It is an awesome resource.
Paul de Rooij
is an economist living in London and can be reached at proox@hotmail.com.
Yesterday's
Features
Bill and Kathleen Christison
On
the Road to Iraq: First Stop Amman
Uri Avnery
An Approaching Emergency
Ray Close
A CIA
Analyst on Forging Intelligence
Michael Neumann
An
Unfounded Rush to Cynicism: a Rebuttal of Perry Anderson
Gary Leupp
Bush's
"Press" Conference
Kurt Nimmo
Perle's Slurs: Smearing Sy Hersh
Terry Jones
Bush
Goes in for the Kill
CounterPunch Wire
Vietnam 2 Pre-Flight Check
Alexander Cockburn
What Will the US Find If It Invades Iraq?
Robert Fisk
Blix
Undermines Bush War Plan
Website of the Day
The
Blix Report
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax--Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|