Campbell and Fisk
Last night’s Campbell Live show featured an exclusive interview with acclaimed war correspondent Robert Fisk which was both compelling and impressive.
Fisk has truly seen more than any person should - death, destruction, despair - in some of the worst war zones in the world, and his message is unequivocal. On television last night and before that in an interview on National Radio on Sunday, he said the same thing: if everybody could see what I have seen, no-one would ever go to war again.
Powerful stuff. It was also powerful to see Campbell Live take the bull by the horns and air an unashamedly anti-war programme. As well as the interview, which is available to view online, the show featured an item titled “The Five Biggest Lies about Iraq”. All common knowledge, actually, but to frame them in such terms was a big call for the show, and one for which it should be commended.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
I must be missing something. There have been wars going on for millenia. Many people have witnessed these wars yet the warring gets perpetuated. And don’t tell me it is only perpetuated by those who have seen the pain and horror of wars. And probably more often than not it is those who have witnessed and suffered the pain and horror who will, at some point want to turn the tables and inflict the horror and pain on the previous aggressors. So there must have been something more to what Fisk said than I can glean from the blog.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
I think Fisk’s point was aimed at the war as viewed by Joe Public, rather than by war professionals. If we the people got up close and personal with what war means (ie the media showed it warts and all), then we the people would not support our leaders getting us involved.
When a country is deciding to go to war or not, then typically the difference between political parties vanish, as differences are put aside “for the good of the nation”. If we could break that gentlemens club arrangement, then decisions to go/not go to war would be political, and this open to possible reprisals at the next election. People could make a difference, if they wanted to.
I thought Campbell (the man) as an interviewer was excellent last night.
March 14th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Pete D: Good point!
However, the wars “going on for millenia”, while irrational and horrifying, not previously of the scale and substance of more recent wars.
(Depleted uranium, for example, is a different “improvement” than learning how to fire-harden the tips of wooden spears.)
Homo sapiens as a species, has a history of using its “big brains” to produce more and more sophisticated “effective and efficient” tools (almost invariably including weapons) but has proved incapable of effectively using those same brains to recognise and control primal human reactions … our ongoing legacy.
If we and the other species with which we share this planet are to have a worthwhile future, we humans each must recognise the ugly little games we play for what they are, and keep on working to minimise the damage we do to each other and the planet as a whole.
Lately it seems to me that we need to work a lot harder!
eredwen
(who, as a female of the species, views this mindless crap as an onlooker)
March 14th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Whatever, eredwen. That last para is mindless crap.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Sorry, but let’s not pin a medal on Campbell’s chest quite yet - being anti-war, anti-Bush etc. is hardly a minority position in this country. And certainly not among the younger, more ‘liberal’ and urban demographic that chooses Three/Campbell Live over One Network News/Close Up.
If you want to see real profiles in journalistic courage, I’d recommend Googling Index on Censorship, Reporters Without Frontiers, or any other group that monitors the often parlous state of press freedoms in the world.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Good on Campbell! It was good to watch something other than mindless nonsense which is generally on our TV.
http://www.truthout.org
March 15th, 2006 at 11:46 am
It’s good see a main stream program on at prime viewing time, discussing the morality of war. Nobody expects one edition of Campbell to change the views of a whole nation, it was one program covering a few dozen minutes of TV time, but encouraging nonetheless.
March 15th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
good video fwog, rod donald was right about the universal commander
March 15th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
all true fwog, but no big points to campbell jeez even us fascist collective redneck know that rod donald was right about bush
March 15th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
What did Rod Donald say about bush?
March 15th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
he [donald ] said he [bush ]was the most dangerous man on the planet
March 15th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
and this was in 2000 just after the presidential election had been rigged, well before falling towers, even helen went berserk at him, on the side of course,
March 15th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Taa. Well Rod certainly had that right! I’ve always thought he was the most obnoxious stupid dangerous little man. He and all his thugs. Wake up America!
March 15th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Yes those falling towers…….anyone read about those reichstag fires in germany in the 30s that ushered in complete police state?
“fascism is the merger of state and corporate power”-Benito Mussolini.
Props to J Campbell, the death toll is ova 100k of Iraqi civilians or PEOPLE but we r talking mainstream. Always liked John, has got too much spirit n intelligence to be a complete sellout.
Although the U.S.(by that i mean the top 1% in control) will probably pull out troops soon, it’s because they have 24 hour plane strikes going on so they don’t need troops on the ground.
March 15th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Will the US pull out troops? I don’t think so
March 15th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
Totally off the topic here… but can somebody direct me to a NZ site that discusses politics ‘nicely’? I belong to a few American and UK sites but I would like to find a NZ site…that doesn’t turn into expletives and abuse. I’m certainly enjoying this frogblog!
March 16th, 2006 at 5:38 am
This one is about the most polite there is, Gill. No Right Turn also seems to get argument that doesn’t centre on insults, but you need a thick skin for the others.
For Eredwen: Of the HMMVs I see going off on convoy duty, a significant proportion seem to have female machine-gunners - this has to be the most equal-opportunity war ever (although I’m having trouble interpreting that as progress…)
March 16th, 2006 at 6:30 am
US will not, and never planned to, pull out. Just google “super base iraq” of which there are 4 being built around Baghdad.
I disagree with Rod, and the rest of you. Cheney is the most dangerous man, Bush is a cats-paw, a sociopath in his own right, but without his Dr Strangelovian VP he would be nothing at all.
respectfully
BJ
March 16th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Thanks psycho_milt and yes, bjchip, you are right, cheney is the real ’super’ power…. do you all think the impeachment ideas are hotting up?
March 16th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
psycho milt said:
“For Eredwen: Of the HMMVs I see going off on convoy duty, a significant proportion seem to have female machine-gunners - this has to be the most equal-opportunity war ever (although I’m having trouble interpreting that as progress…)”
Yes, I agree! (on both counts)
I wrote, aware of the current makeup of American armed forces,
and aware that someone, probably male, would point that out!
From what I hear, an important factor in enlistment is the bribe of “a College Education” in return for military service … compelling among less affluent American youth, especially females as “their only chance”.
However, “as a female of the species, viewing this mindless crap as an onlooker” … I am a mother, with the experience of the creation and nurturing of human beings: pregnancies, child birth, and full-on child raising (and with the hormones which facilitate all of that) … to me war is an anthema.
Hopefully the daughters of America coming home in body bags will help more people to start thinking rationally about what war actually is and does.
eredwen
March 16th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Unfortunately, they’ve been shipping the odd dead mother home too. There are plenty of uniformed mothers where I work, come to that. Never underestimate an American’s patriotism and sense of duty, it’s like an alien culture to us.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:36 am
psycho milt:
Thanks for that! Interesting … tell us more.
My brother and family are Americans of 35 years standing … back in Aotearoa/NZ for a while. (My neice and her family remain in California.)
eredwen
March 17th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Nothing against Campbell as an interveiwer, or the show, but Fisk is an idiot.
He never puts things in context, when this is inconvenient to his opinion. He also never lets facts, get in the way of his opinion.
He says 100,000 have died in the last 3 years. He and others claimed 100,000 a year died a year under sanctions.
He says it was wrong for the West to intervene militarily, to support the collective security agreement of the UN in the liberation of South Korea. But makes no similar criicisim of the liberation of Kuwait.
No consistency. No credibility.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
And that is a criticism.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
People can be right on one issue and wrong on another, i know there’s the tendency for people to think they know it all but people are crazy, let’s face it!
Depends on where the person is coming from, right or wrong i think. Generally the less mis-anthropic the person is, the more i respect what they are saying, whether i know better or not.
March 18th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Wow SPC!
If, in comparison to you, Robert Fisk is an “idiot”, you must be the brightest human on the Planet.
March 18th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Well said eredwen!
:)
March 18th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
SPC… your attempts to dicredit Fisk are…pathetic.
he was an ardent critic of Bush I’s Gulf War I and the sanctions from day 1.
credible studies reveal that the sanctions were directly responsible for the deaths of at least half a million Iraqi children between 1990 and 2002. lack of medicines and clean drinking water being the main causes of death. clinton’s own secretary of state (albright) even said the deaths were “worth it” on US tv.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
“It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it.”
Her response to a May 11, 1996 60 Minutes question about the over half a million children killed by the [Iraqi] sanctions
Death of 500,000 Children ‘Worth It’
“What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it?�
… as remembered in Colin Powell’s memoir. Powell wrote that he almost had an aneurysm, he was so upset. [abcnews bio]
March 21st, 2006 at 11:42 am
I managed to catch Fisk on Friday with John campbell & Justin du Fresne at the panel discussion, for Writers and Readers week of the festival, held in the Embassey theatre. The rapport between Fisk, Campbell and Oram, the MC, was quite amazing, while du Fresne ( having stated that he only got into journalism ‘cos a teacher said english was his only good subject, then skited about how he had worked all his life in media without doing a degree ) was generally on the back foot, and irrelevant to the discussion.
Mostly, that session was about the recently published “History of Civilisation” published by Harpercollins, but a few questions took off on tangents.
Then I had a ticket to the screening at the Paraamount of “From Beiruit to Bosnia”, a doco written by Fisk, which was originally a joint project of Channel 4(UK) and Discovery Channel(USA), made in 1993. Astoundingly, the doco comes to the conclusion that Muslims worldwide will not put up with the US attitude in the middle east, and it was panned as “sensationalist”. This was post-Gulf War 1, when embargoes were in place, and US defence forces vet’s were just beginning their battles to have depleted uranium poisoning (Gulf war Syndrome) recognised as a work-related illness, for army pension purposes.
Of course, eight years before 9/11/2001, no-one was prepared to acknowledge american responsibility for the shift in global Islamic attitudes.
Hell, they still don’t want to acknowledge that now.
In between these two cultural events, I participated in a march to commemorate three years since the beginning of the US invasion of Iraq. This was supported by many varied groups, carrying banners and placards, doing street theatre and singing & chanting as we walked.
Yet the question remains: when will the USA get out of Iraq, and recognise that the world regards this as an illegal war? Not ratified by UN conventions, under investigation due to the lack of “WMD”, it’s ostensible reason for incursion. No actual sightiings of Osama bin Ladin anywhere near Iraq, and Pakistan is a more dangerous “neighbour” to the oilfields than Iran.
March 21st, 2006 at 11:54 am
Interesting post Katie.
Thanks for that!
March 21st, 2006 at 9:24 pm
So one gets slighted here, if one criticises Fisk AND says why?
Is he the holy man of some? Is he someone above being criticised, because he attacks the right people with his fallacious arguements?
tochigi,
“he was an ardent critic of Bush I’s Gulf War I and the sanctions from day 1.”
He did not mention that on Campbell Live - because it was inconvenient to his line that the USA was biased against Arabs/Moslems. Selective citation of cases to suit his opinion. Poor journalism.
Are you saying he opposes all use of force to liberate occupied countries? Is he saying that wars should take place between two parties and the stronger one should win without outside interference?
He must then oppose the UN which is premised on collective security.
“credible studies reveal that the sanctions were directly responsible for the deaths of at least half a million Iraqi children between 1990 and 2002. lack of medicines and clean drinking water being the main causes of death.”
So.
He cannot claim that the situation is any worse for the 2003 invasion, can he. Which was my point.
March 21st, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Threads like this are always interesting, even if, as is again the case, they wander off the subject. Which is, to wit, that War Fings Bad, Peace Fings Good.
A nice, pleasant, middle-class attitude, but unfortunately sustainable only in the midst of lots of other, nice middle-class folk who won’t do nasty fings like steal your car, attempt to do weird stuff to your daughter, defraud your pension fund or ram-raid your little organics store looking for a cheap high.
When stuff like that happens, who do nice middle-class people call? The local shaman, priest, meditator, mediator or voice counsellor?
Nah. They call big hulking people with shiny stars, fat rulebooks, fast cars and handguns in the boot of said cars. Specialists in the positive use of violence.
Just paraphrasing Orwell, y’see.
War may be bad, but slavery is worse. You won’t hear that POV from Fisk.
March 22nd, 2006 at 9:54 am
SPC said:
“So one gets slighted here, if one criticises Fisk AND says why?”
I think that is MOST unlikely!
I read your posts and find them full of assertions (many of which are inaccurate), and written in a beligerent tone.
Thus, I suspect that an answer would be pointless, as you seem to be on this blog for different reasons (from most of us here).
eredwen
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:40 am
It’s a bit silly to attack Fisk on the basis that he was “selective” in his citations on Campbell Live - of course he was! I’d be a bit worried if his entire knowledge of the world fitted into one episode of a TV show. Perhaps you could read his books for the context and a more accurate statement of his views.
And the figures he cites for deaths in Iraq are not comparable, one concerns deaths due to untreated illnesses and poverty, the other from violence.
“War may be bad, but slavery is worse. You won’t hear that POV from Fisk.” Actually, I think you will. I don’t recall Fisk telling the Lebanese to lay down their arms in the face of the Israeli invasions, or tell them to put up with the Syrian occupation. And Fisk is one of the few western journalists to consistently report on the abuses and authoritarianism of Middle Eastern governments. His position is that Western interference in the Middle East has made things worse, and should end, and he backs that position with reference to hundreds of years of history.
Look at how US pressure and attacks on Iran has and is being used to stifle the movement for democratisation there.
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:12 am
waymad:
Your assumptions give an insight into a society that we would be wise NOT to emulate in Aotearoa NZ.
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Dear innocents (you know who you are):
The bit about handguns in the boots of police cars was certainly true 14 years ago right here in li’l ol’ NZ. Now, if you are observant, they are much more likely just to be holstered, and in plain view.
No assumptions here: just the facts’ ma’am.
And you need to answer the underlying power equation: which would you rather have knock on your door: specialists in violence who are State-sanctioned, observe (all right, mostly) publicly debated rules of conduct, are answerable to courts and other professional bodies, and vaguely but eventually, to the public at large?
Or the other specialists in violence (and your major assumption, which is why I refer to you as innocents, is that somehow this second category doesn’t exist) who are just interested in doing whatever they feel like, with what, to whomever, and for however long.
As the good Chairman said, power comes out of the barrel of a gun.
March 24th, 2006 at 2:25 am
Sam Buchanan
It is the very selective summary which Fisk gave, which lies at the heart of the journalism which we have all read for many years, in article after article.
There is another “point of view”. This somes up his journalism.
March 24th, 2006 at 2:27 am
“And the figures he cites for deaths in Iraq are not comparable, one concerns deaths due to untreated illnesses and poverty, the other from violence.”
So it all depends on how people die, whether things have got better or worse? It was more an issue of sanitation/clean water/medical capability etc than poverty.
March 24th, 2006 at 2:50 am
So one gets slighted here, if one criticises Fisk AND says why?
eredwen,
“I think that is MOST unlikely! I read your posts and find them full of assertions (many of which are inaccurate), and written in a beligerent tone.”
A blanket assertion easily made, with no corroboration or supporting case.
Is that a way of saying nice people come here to agree with what “you” believe? And those who don’t, are not nice? Is that how simple your world is?
As you also said, if more carefully, in responding to waymad. Which actually makes his point. As you also made mine.
If this is commonly accepted, what is this, one of a religious sects meeting houses
Frankly I am uncomfortable with any place, where anyone whose whose opinion does not accord with that of others, does not belong.
Well I did write to the PM to say, I would move to supporting her government via voting Green from 2002 on. But obviously, if one cannot find a modicum of acceptance for diversity, on even the public outreach of Green politics, it is futile for those of the mainstream to consider any closer association.
I will simply then declare the obvious, the Green party will miss Greens such as Rod Donald.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:01 am
Sam Buchanan
“I don’t recall Fisk telling the Lebanese to lay down their arms in the face of the Israeli invasions, or tell them to put up with the Syrian occupation. And Fisk is one of the few western journalists to consistently report on the abuses and authoritarianism of Middle Eastern governments. His position is that Western interference in the Middle East has made things worse, and should end, and he backs that position with reference to hundreds of years of history.”
His opposition to collective security for South Korea and Kuwait indicates he prefers survival of the fittest regional power. This is no different to winner take all in national politics.
“Look at how US pressure and attacks on Iran has and is being used to stifle the movement for democratisation there.”
Used? They eliminated democrats from standing for parliament. But the ability to do so existed through the 90’s, when they were silencing dissident media. There was only a brief period of liberalisation and much of it was in Bush’s first term.
March 24th, 2006 at 10:00 am
SPC:
” It was more an issue of sanitation/clean water/medical capability etc than poverty”
I would consider these to be poverty-related impacts. My point was that the figure of 100,000 dying since the US invasion doesn’t include deaths from these sorts of causes. There are certainly still people dying in Iraq from lack of clean water and lack of medical facilities, but I haven’t seen any figures.
Can you actually cite Fisk’s opposition to collective security? Or is it a case of him objecting to certain actions undertaken in the name of collective security? Fisk certainly objected to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, carried out in the name of “collective security”, not because he objects to collective defence, but on the grounds that it was an occupation. If, as you claim, he “prefers survival of the fittest regional power”, why would he object to Syrian rule in Lebanon, Syria being the far stronger power?
I don’t understand what you are trying to say about the suppression of the Iranian democracy movement (it’s the grammar). The Iranian government and its supporters have been using threats from the US as weapon against the democracy movement since the 1979 revolution, or very soon after at least. I don’t see how you can refute this as it seems very well established.
March 24th, 2006 at 11:03 am
SPC,
I am sorry to hear that you feel like an “outsider” on frogblog.
I will take you seriously and try to answer your post.
(Just to put this answer in context … I taught Communications English at tertiary level for 20 years.)
When “analysing” what others say when responding to one’s contributions, it is VERY important to look carefully at the content and manner of one’s own contributions (as they are an essential part of the equation.)
I will do that now with my responses to your “comments”.
SPC:
“So one gets slighted here, if one criticises Fisk AND says why?”
eredwen:
“I think that is MOST unlikely!”
(That was a straight and honest opinion based on my knowledge and experience of frogblog… )
eredwen:
“I read your posts and find them full of assertions (many of which are inaccurate), and written in a beligerent tone.â€?
(That was an honest assesment of my reaction to your posts … I do give you the courtesy of reading what you have written … )
SPC:
“A blanket assertion easily made, with no corroboration or supporting case.”
(No! My post was not “a debate”. I gave you information about my reactions to the way in which you wrote. It was up to you whether you chose to take heed.)
SPC:
“Is that a way of saying nice people come here to agree with what “youâ€? believe? And those who don’t, are not nice? Is that how simple your world is?”
(No it isn’t! There seems to be quite a diverse group frequenting frogblog. I suspect this says more about you and how you feel, than what actually occurs.)
SPC:
“As you also said, if more carefully, in responding to waymad. Which actually makes his point. As you also made mine.”
“If this is commonly accepted, what is this, one of a religious sects meeting houses
“Frankly I am uncomfortable with any place, where anyone whose whose opinion does not accord with that of others, does not belong.”
(All of that says much more about your behaviour and feelings than the behaviour of others on the blog.)
SPC: Well I did write to the PM to say, I would move to supporting her government via voting Green from 2002 on. But obviously, if one cannot find a modicum of acceptance for diversity, on even the public outreach of Green politics, it is futile for those of the mainstream to consider any closer association.
(What is this? A veiled threat?) Poor old SPC! You “dish it out” in a combative manner but when you don’t get the response you hope for …
frogblog is NOT the Green Party. Contributors here are not necessarily members of the Green Party. (I occasionally see a post from someone I actually know within the Party.) The Party itself has a diversity of members.
(Personally I find the Greens VERY tolerant and inclusive.)
“I will simply then declare the obvious, the Green party will miss Greens such as Rod Donald.
Yes we do! You have absolutely no idea … I met Rod in 1972. We associated in various roles over the years. I live in the Banks Penninsula electorate and thus, more recently, worked with Rod reguarly ( … But that was not what you meant was it?)
SPC I have taken considerable time and effort to answer your post.
Take it or leave it as you like … Anyone is welcome on frogblog, but it isn’t a place where the behaviour common on some other blogs will be effective …
“Adapt the way in which you present your message to suit the situation”
If you are genuinely interested in the Greens, then practise some Green behaviour. (You might even enjoy the results!)
It really is up to you.
Best wishes!
eredwen
March 24th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
And in today’s crowning irony, solidly built chaps (and possibly chapesses, if the Special Forces have Embraced Diversity), armed with nasty shooty things, have barged their way into some poor cowering oppressed Iraqi’s shack, and forcibly ‘released’ those lovely peaceful CPT citoyens. And without dialoguing anyone, too!
March 25th, 2006 at 12:43 am
SPC : There is another “point of view�. This sums up his journalism.
So (from your point of view) Fisk is an idiot because he has a point of view?
You’re perhaps suggesting that journalists should be “objective”? that they shouldn’t have a “point of view” of their own?
That would imply presenting only “facts” (if, for a start, we could agree on what they were), and no analysis. Because analysis requires a point of view.
Everyone knows that Fisk has his own point of view. You read his articles knowing who he is, and with a fair idea of what he believes. He’s a left winger, with crusading tendencies. That’s perfectly honourable in a journalist. You may disagree with his opinions, or with the selection of facts he uses, but that isn’t an objective criticism of his journalism.
March 25th, 2006 at 12:44 am
Waymad:
Dear innocents (you know who you are)
Can the strawpersons stand up and be counted please?
March 25th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Strawpersons? Shurely the first duty of Gummint is the physical security of its citoyens.
Fisk is essentially saying, if you’ve seen what I’ve seen, you’d never go to war again.
But history is replete with cases of citizenries being trapped in what amounts to our modern eyes, as slaveries of some sort.
Tyrannies of all stripes are in fact extremely sustainable, particularly if they rely on fear engendered by letting 14-30 year old males (in ’security forces’ or the like), indulge their hard-wired tendencies to slaughter, rapine and general hell-raising.
So shooting your way into such self-sustaining loops, to release the lives of all involved for Better Fings, is literally the only way sometimes.
Fisk may well have seen a lot, and be prepared to spread a message of ‘let’s not keep doing this’. But he’s preaching to the choir. Anyone truly concerned with the sustainability of a way of life, will in a political sense, ensure that there are police, security and other specialists in violence, on hand to keep people safe. And answerable to that citizenry. So saying ‘ don’t keep doing this’ is at best mischievious, and at worst a recipe for takeover by folks with fewer scruples about employing violence.
And Campbell didn’t ask the most obvious question:
‘Mr Fisk, you have lived safely for 30 years in Lebanon, which for all of that time was a police state, client of Syria, funded by Iran. Who has ensured your own freedom over that time, and has that affected your judgement?’
Straw into gold, eh, Alistair?
March 27th, 2006 at 5:14 am
Actually, Waymad is pointing up the folly of us greens not having a defence policy. That omission permits persons like himself (assumption) to create such extreme pacifist strawmen.
Which doesn’t make his creations any more edifying.
Those peaceful CPT citizens wouldn’t have been in trouble if some other chaps with nasty shooting things (and bombing things) hadn’t rudely and without ANY legal reason, knocked down every door in Iraq 3 years ago. You should be careful where you grab the blade Waymad, it actually has no handle.
BJ
March 27th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Good point, BJC.
A defence policy, people, resources and equipment to do the dirty deeds, and training etc is just what I expect my hard-won and reluctantly surrendered taxes, to fund, as the very first duty of Gummint. So, you are quite correct, not having such a policy shows a fundamental unseriousness about Governing.
And your own straw person (Lord help me, I’m using the same woolly language) is the ‘illegality’ of Iraq. You’ll need to keep a careful eye on the documents now being released: the ‘Blessed July’ aspect alone (see, for example http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85301-p10/kevin-woods-jam es-lacey-williamson-murray/saddam-s-delusions-the-view-from-the-inside .html) would make a Londoner think twice. The point is that ‘legality’ applies only to a Westphalian nation-state weltanschauung. And we’re definitely not in that Kansas any more, Dorothy.
New Zealand is strategically irrelevant to the new Great Game - the Western Enlightenment against the Third Caliphate, but does pose a security risk to the rest of the Anglosphere: our laughably lax immigration and citizenship attitudes, mean that we are seen as a ’soft touch’.
So a useful start to a Green defence policy might be to ponder awhile on the ’sustainability’ of this stance.
And this goes far beyond the electoral considerations. When you consider that the Reggie Krays of the world can now purchase submarines, aircraft carriers and crude nuclear devices (read William Langwiesche on A.Q Khan in recent Atlantic Monthlies) as well as the usual run of weaponry, and that NZ has the longest and certainly the least defendable coastline in the Pacific, all sorts of unhealthy scenarios swim up from the depths.
And Reggie, to those who knew him, had one persona that was utterly charming, urbane, philanthropic and which took in more than one ingenuous reporter. But then he also had his Little Moments.
We, of course, don’t want to be a pawn in someone else’s game. Fair enough, the quiet life and all. But then, as Trotsky noted, ‘You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you’.
Better to heed and prepare.
March 27th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Waymad
The legality of the war, in the context of the United States of America, is simply “ill”. The President and his Strangelovian VP simply, systematically and consistently lied to Congress. You may not believe it, but if the House OR Senate changes hands and a real investigation is mounted there will be people locked in Leavenworth before its done. Bush’s approval rating is what, 34%? Cheney is working on HALF that now. Speculation about whether he can get into single digits is rife. What more would he have to do… he’s already shot someone.
Illegal, and that’s even before you reach into the UN mandate or lack thereof.
I started reading into the link you provided but in 3 pages found no referent to “Blessed July”. Could you point more precisely? It’s long, and I have not the time I need to wade through the minutiae of madness that it documents. Of course he was mad. That was not a reason to go to war with Iraq.
Whether there was a war between the “caliphate” as you describe it, and the western world, or we had a problem that could have been solved in terms of international cooperation of police forces, interpol and the like… well we could argue that for a long time. I’ve had the argument before, and basically it is an imponderable. We’ll never know because Bush in his arrogance, took us to war with “Terra”…. and in the process created the very situation that Osama Bin Forgotten needed to instantiate the war to which you are referring. I have no doubt that it will now be sustainable indefinitely with very little additional input from anyone. Hate is like that.
I rather doubt that any of the birdfarms of the world are for sale even to a Reggie Kray, and the skills and teamwork necessary to run one effectively are definitely not available either. Submarines are a smaller package, and might well be available, but what is the threat they pose to us? Most of your unhealthy scenarios reek of unrealistic assumptions. Think carefully on what you are worried about happening. Just what is needed for those bad things to actually become reality?
As for whether the Greens have a defence policy… well that is up to us. Some of us reckon if we want to actually WIN elections we have to have one (In other words -We didn’t need you to tell us ). I should point out too, that the lack of the formal policy is NOT the same as adopting a pacifist policy. Some Greens are pacifists, some are not, and the Green Party has not as yet decided a policy.
respectfully
BJ
March 27th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
BJC - try http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/009e uijs.asp for a quick take on the Iraqi Assassin’s Guild now uncovered.
I’m not up for a rehash of ‘illegality’, but you haven’t touched the substantive point, which is simply that festering nation-states are a disaster not only to their own citizens, but in pathological cases, to others as well. Grotius, from memory, some centuries ago.
And you illustrate quite well the blind spot in the Green world-view: the feeling that ’such bad people don’t exist and if they do, couldn’t organise themselves sufficiently well to… do whatever’.
That’s just feel-good, middle-class delusion, IMAO, and in that of more well-versed souls such as Christopher Hitchens. Evil people do exist, and human nature (in contrast to the Pollyanna view) has a side which positively revels in the darker side, given scope and encouragement. History has several examples.
I would much prefer a Defence Policy (and actions, too) based on a much less sunny view of my fellow Sapiens. It has been said that the best strategies come from a tragic perpsective. That’s certainly true here.
And, of course, let’s have a Policy in the first place. Serious about Governing, remember.
March 27th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Waymad
Thanks for the link. The pound of salt I provide myself. Always remembering where these things are ultimately coming from it is hard to know how much credence to give them. Point is, and this is important, they were not a serious or credible threat to the USA AND they were not among the reasons the war as they were presented to the Congress.
Waymad, if you can tell me in simple terms, what you worry about and why I could perhaps deal with it. Since I have a very seriously and thoroughly considered set of possible contexts in which we MIGHT have to use our military I would welcome any actual indication of where I might have a “blind spot”. I don’t think there is one. I am VERY well versed in Carrier Flight Operations, and the maintenance and skill levels required to manage a bird farm. No Reggie Kray or any private arms dealer will ever have that kind of clout. The delusion isn’t mine.
Sunny? Greens? We expect peak oil, global warming, mass starvation, flotillas of refugee boats, and a 6 meter increase in the ocean level by the turn of the century unless there’s a global thermonuclear war to usher in the next Ice-Age with a nuclear winter. We don’t expect a carrier task group.
respectfully
BJ
March 27th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
So, a tragic attitude! Very good. Now let’s take that one step further: take one conceivable consequence of a sea-level rise: flotillas of not exactly refugees, but 5000 armed-to-the-teeth fighters who in the name of Lebensraum, arrive simultaneously at each of our major airports in 747’s, backed up with a handful of submarines (you should be aware that Colombian drug-lords own submarines….) and gently suggest that they are now the new landlords. Oh, and they’re not Christians.
Your assignment (should you decide to accept it): describe NZ’s general strategic response.
Then, how to get there from here. Tactics.
Hint: it’s a fair distance.
But that’s just the sort of scenario a Defence Policy should be assuming.
March 27th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
I fear the Americans more… one hint of oil down here and they would be here!
:) Sea level rise - America should look at global warming and address this issue…. oh but they can’t… they are ‘Christian’…. and that I don’t believe for a minute.
Forcing their ‘democracy’ on us, their Walmart, etc etc…. our TV stations are already taken up with all the American crap… heaven help us and save us from the USA!
March 27th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Waymad,
You seem to be having some delusional half baked conversation with yourself. This thread is titled “Campbell and Fisk” - you’ve not only gone OT - but have started repeating yourself on another blog with no reference to the original argument.
March 27th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
He must be american :D:D:D
March 27th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Waymad? American?
As may be, I have no doubt that he’s not thought through the scenario. There are 4 million Kiwi’s here and a surprising number of weapons, not even counting the reserves and the regular army. Packing 5000 “fighters” plus THEIR weapons into 747’s, landing them simultaneously at any single airport or at “all our major airports” and accomplishing anything aside from getting a lot of people killed is beyond even my imagination. How many people in one of them? I think there’d have to be about 15 of the things, but we don’t have that many runways.
I reckon they’d last a day, maybe two at most. Do some damage, kill some people and die. Supported by Submarines? Just what sort of amphibious or other support of ground troops do you get from a submarine Waymad?
Not only do I know the Columbians have a submarine I know just how useless it is to them, and just how useless they are in general for doing ANYTHING to people on the beach…( except for the SSBN’s and those aren’t much use if you actually want property you can walk on ).
Face it Waymad, you’ve gone over the edge here. The scenario you describe doesn’t lead to anything particularly useful for an opponent even with almost NO preparation on our part.
Gill- There’s not likely to be a problem with the Americans. I know we’re the boogeymen, but there’s orders and there’s orders. Officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution, not the administration…. and even if Bush is NOT impeached his ability to sucker them into another war based on fake intelligence offerings is hovering near zero.
I can’t “guarantee” anything… it’s been thirty years since I had regular dinners with the guy who is the current Chief of Naval Operations… (he was my first CO), but I don’t think he’d buy any part of it… and I am sure he’s not alone in that and oil or no oil… they’re going to have a lot of OTHER problems.
For those of you who didn’t know, I am an American… and a permanent resident here for 2+ years now.
respectfully
BJ
March 28th, 2006 at 12:22 am
5000 armed-to-the-teeth fighters who in the name of Lebensraum, arrive simultaneously at each of our major airports in 747’s
Hahahahahahah!
Well, if any such threat should take form — and there’d be time enough to see it coming — then I think a couple of dozen SAMs should take care of it. Soviet-era technology would be fine — it would be cheap to buy, and with the added advantage that you could hire technicians to maintain and run them pretty cheap.
i.e. sure, let’s examine REAL threats, and take measures to deal with them if it seems necessary.
I am severely puzzled as to why anyone who claims that we should be taking measures to deal with security threats, should choose to cite Iraq as an example… it was possible to be mistaken about it in 2002, but not today surely…
It has not only made the world a much more dangerous place; it has, unfortunately, severely discredited the notion of pre-emptive military action in general. I can think of circumstances in which an Iraq-style intervention might be desireable (I am not made of straw, but of sterner stuff), but it clearly won’t be politically possible for a long time to come.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:30 am
and to get back to your original strawman, Way Mad (”You are all innocents who are going to get mown down like rabbits”), and to the subject of the thread :
it’s based on the following syllogism :
* Fisk is not only anti-war, but against all forms of army or armed police
* Anyone who approves of anything that Fisk writes or says must necessarily believe everything that Fisk believes
Neither of these terms has been demonstrated, so your strawman falls flat on his face, with a dull thud.
March 28th, 2006 at 8:32 am
Good work, chaps. Thought experiments are cheap, can be conclusive (Schrodinger’s Cat, fer example) and by eliminating way-out (way mad?) scenarios, tend to focus minds on the possible rather than the completely improbable.
From this leetle discussion already:
- Defence needs to be taken seriously, and I commend you all on not just parroting the ‘let’s be nice to everyone and it will all go away’ meme that so stifles actual strategy and policy development.
- Current living conditions (cities, infrastructure) in NZ were never planned with any defence in mind. In military terms there is no hardening whatsoever. This leaves us quite vulnerable to even small events. I’ve often joked to colleagues that a handful of old farts in $200 cars could gridlock Auckland for weeks by stalling them at key junctions, and it doesn’t take much imagination to see that electricity, water, and sewerage could be similarly disrupted oh so easily.
- a tragic sensibility is needed for this sort of stuff, and a .mil background doesn’t go amiss, either.
Good luck for pulling all that together. And selling it to the troops - whoops - Green personages.
Roger, over and out.
March 28th, 2006 at 9:50 am
WM,
We’ll give you credit for a gracious exit. Thanks for calling in.
BJ, As I’ve said before it’s not American’s per se that are the problem. Glad to have your contribution to NZ.