U.S. is blamed for others'
economic and social misery
Brian Knowlton/IHT
International Herald Tribune
Thursday, December 5, 2002
WASHINGTON The global image of the United
States has suffered a dramatic bruising in the past two years,
most seriously in Muslim countries but also to a surprising extent
among many traditional allies, a major new opinion survey has
found. The souring attitudes toward the United States were matched
by broad discontent with world economic and social conditions,
the
survey found.
"Since
2000, favorability ratings for the United States have fallen in
19 of the 27 countries where trend benchmarks are available,"
said a report from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center which,
in association with the International Herald Tribune, surveyed
38,000 people in 44 countries in late summer and early fall.
While majorities in nearly every country
supported the U.S.-led war on terrorism, U.S. threats of war against
Iraq appear to have heightened concerns, recorded in earlier surveys,
about an American foreign policy seen as overly aggressive and
insufficiently concerned with the interests of friends and allies.
Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research
Center, called the breadth of the U.S. image problem surprising,
attributing it in part to the United States' status as the world¹s
sole superpower. "When you're the richest guy on the block
and the most powerful nation on earth, unchallenged, you don't
have the natural coalitions that unite you with your allies against
your enemy," he said.
Tensions were arising with allies, he said,
because "we don't have a common enemy to bond us together."
Reflecting broad discontent based partly
in an unusually synchronous global economic downturn, almost all
national publics viewed global fortunes as drifting lower. Respondents
in only 7 of 44 countries judged their national economies positively.
Public issues of chief global concern, in declining order, were:
AIDS and infectious diseases; religious and ethnic hatred; nuclear
weapons; the rich-poor gap; and pollution and environmental problems.
Other survey findings point to complicated
and often conflicted views of the United States. The downward
trend in the U.S. image, fueled by complaints about foreign policy,
business practices and a perceived failure to do enough to narrow
the global rich-poor gap, was offset somewhat by persisting reserves
of goodwill. The United States and its citizens continue to receive
overall positive ratings by majorities in 35 of the 42 countries
in which the question was asked < and there was a surprising
rise in U.S. favorability in Russia. But while many people still
admire U.S. technological achievements and cultural exports, majorities
in nearly every country said they disliked the spread of U.S.
influence. Few people, even in close allies like Canada, Mexico,
Britain and Germany, expressed a "very favorable" opinion
of the United States.
Anti-American sentiment was striking in
Egypt, one of the largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid and a
country considered pivotal to U.S. policy in the Middle East.
The 6 percent of Egyptians with favorable views of the United
States were outnumbered more than 11-to-1 by those holding unfavorable
views. In Pakistan, which has provided crucial support to the
U.S. campaign in Afghanistan, unfavorable views dominated by about
7 to 1.
Reaction to the war on terror or the U.S.
threats to Iraq appeared to propel some of the sharpest shifts
in opinion of the United States. The U.S. favorability figure
in Germany, where the possibility of war on Iraq is so deeply
unpopular that it caused testy relations with the Bush administration,
dropped from nearly 80 percent two years ago to about 60 percent
this year; pressure on Indonesia, a populous Muslim country, to
crack down on terrorists may have fueled a 14 percent drop in
the U.S. favorability rating. The numbers plunged in Turkey and
Pakistan as well. But in Russia, which has supported the U.S.
crackdown on terror and where a close personal friendship has
evolved between Presidents Vladimir Putin andGeorge W. Bush, the
rise in U.S. favorability rankings has been large, to 61percent
from 37 percent.
Ambivalence to the spread of American culture
and values was a recurring theme in the poll. In Canada, for example,
54 percent of those surveyed said the spread of American ideas
and customs was bad, to 37 percent who found it good. Yet when
asked whether they liked American music, movies and television,
more than 3 in 4 Canadians said they did. Similar contradictions
prevailed in Britain, Germany, France and other countries. Eight
in 10 Americans, meanwhile, said that the spread of U.S. ideas
and customs was a good thing. Many people around the world said
that the United States did not adequately consider their countries¹
interests. This was in stark contrast to Americans' solidly held
view that the United States does take others'
interests into account.
U.S. policy in the Middle East was another
factor fueling anti-American sentiment, dramatically in the region
but also in Europe. In addition, majorities in most countries
say that the United States does too little to solve global problems.
Despite widespread reservations about U.S. power and influence,
the people of no country said that the emergence of another superpower
would make the world safer. Even 53 percent of Russians said that
the world was safer with a single superpower.
While many people expressed concerns about
the world economy or their national economies, satisfaction with
life rose strongly in the past decade through much of Europe,
with a rise of 21 points in France, 12 points in Italy and 18
points in the Czech Republic.
Younger East Europeans were particularly
upbeat. German correspondents displayed the effects of the huge
West German investment into Eastern Germany; there was a 21-point
rise (to 36 percent) in life satisfaction in the Eastern region,
while satisfaction in Western Germany remained steady at 52 percent,
the only European public to show no increase in personal
satisfaction since the early 1990s. While Canadians and Americans
judged
their lives to be better than those of people of major West European
nations, the big gap was between people in the West and the rest.
Asians, and particularly Chinese and Indians,
were less satisfied with their
lives than were Westerners. Yet, the Chinese and the Indians,
and many
others in Asia, were extremely optimistic about prospects for
their
children. In Japan, where the economy has struggled for more than
a decade,
respondents were among the gloomiest of the Asians. Yet, an unusually
high
proportion of Japanese reported no major personal concerns. The
economy
surely was a key reason for Argentine pessimism; most said their
lives had
got worse in recent years; and respondents in Turkey, facing the
soaring
unemployment rate that contributed to the recent electoral success
of an
Islamic political party, were among the unhappiest people surveyed.
While few in the West reported ever doing without the basics of
life,
Overwhelming majorities in Africa said there had been times in
the past year
when they had too little money for food, clothing or health care.
Majorities
in Latin America, Russia and Ukraine also had faced times when
they had too
little to afford food.
Fifteen percent of Americans said they
had been unable to afford food at
times in past year, the highest of any advanced economy. But most
people in
the West expressed positive views of their personal lives. Two-thirds
of
Canadians and nearly as many Americans gave their current lives
the highest
rating; smaller majorities in Western Europe did the same.
Outside the West, satisfaction levels were
far lower. East Europeans expressed considerable unhappiness with
their lives. Only 1 in 5 Russians
rated his or her life highly, though younger people were more
upbeat. Fewer than 4 in 10 Africans surveyed rated their lives
highly. African countries accounted for 9 of the 11 poorest countries
in the survey. Income alone did not fully explain people¹s
evaluations of their lives. Mexicans and South Koreans expressed
roughly the same satisfaction levels as West Europeans did, though
per-capita incomes in Europe are much higher. A tendency emerged
for people to be particularly pessimistic about conditions far
from their homes. The people of most countries surveyed rated
the quality of their own life as much higher than the state of
their country, and rated national conditions as better than their
assessment of the world.
Perhaps reflecting security concerns around
the world, the military emerged as a highly rated institution
in most countries; notable exceptions were in Latin American countries
with histories of military dictatorships or abuses of power, including
Guatemala and Argentina.
Despite displeasure with national and international
conditions, few blamed the messengers. Lopsided majorities in
almost every country said that news organizations had a beneficial
impact on their societies, rating them higher than their national
governments. Television was the predominant source of information
on national and international affairs cited by nearly all respondents
in the 44 countries surveyed.
1) Introduction: A High Stakes
Game
2) One Link: North Korea Threat Part of US Regional Strategy
3) Background
4) Axis of Evil
5) Nuclear Weapons Program
6) Implications
7) Credits
8) About the Bulletin
1) INTRODUCTION: A HIGH STAKES GAME
In 1994, the US and North Korea reached
the brink of war when it was discovered that North Korea was developing
nuclear weapons. The crisis was averted by the Agreed Framework
negotiated by the Clinton administration, which had North Korea
promise to stop developing nuclear weapons in exchange for two
nuclear reactors, fuel oil aid, and improved relations.
Now North Korea has admitted to having
a weapons program once again, after being presented with evidence
of North Korean nuclear activities by US envoy James Kelly. The
result has been global shock and confusion about North Korea's
motives. South Korean representatives have framed the admission
as part of North Korea's willingness to improve ties with the
outside world. Other analysts believe that it is part of a traditional
North Korean tactic of creating a crisis in order to force talks,
and that North Korea may be using its nuclear capacity as a bargaining
chip--as something to be exchanged for improved relations with
the US or for aid. For its part, the US has declared that the
admission makes the 1994 agreement null and void, dismissing the
North Korean perception that the the US had already broken several
of its own promises under the agreement, including the building
of two nuclear reactors in North Korea by 2003.
The UN's nuclear monitoring body, the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has issued a call for North Korea
to admit weapons inspectors as soon as possible. However, the
action cannot be enforced by the IAEA. It must be enforced by
the UN Security Council, which is currently focused almost exclusively
on Iraq. Even though the Bush administration and several of its
allies have opted to stop shipping fuel oil to North Korea as
a retaliation for the weapons program, there is still no talk
of forcing inspections; nor has the US said that it is considering
military retaliation if North Korea does not comply.
Considering the stance the US government
is taking against Iraq, the relative disregard of the North Korean
threat is raising questions about whether US foreign policy is
inconsistent, or even hypocritical. The Bush administration is
considering taking pre-emptive military action against Iraq based
only on the unproven suspicion that Iraq has or could develop
chemical and nuclear weapons; yet it seems unwilling to threaten
any military action against North Korea even after North Korea
has admitted to having a weapons program. North Korea also has
an "evil dictator" who treats his people extremely poorly,
and appears on the US list of countries that support terrorism,
yet there is little talk of "regime change" for North
Korea. Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, has said that,
"Not every policy needs to be put into a photocopier."
But what's the real reason that North Korea
isn't high priority? It could be because Iraq has oil, a resource
which North Korea lacks. Or it could simply be that the US has
already committed so many diplomatic and military resources to
an attack on Iraq that it's virtually impossible to back down
and focus elsewhere at this point.
However, it's more likely that emphasizing
North Korea's threat while not aggressively pursuing military
action against the country is serving US strategic interests.
How? According to several analysts, the US hopes to use the threat
from North Korea as a tactic to push through the building of controversial
missile defense systems in the area. Such missile defenses would
help contain the growing threat from China, the one country that
is developing enough economic and military strength to compete
with the US. This is a much more appealing strategy for the US
than directly attacking North Korea, which has its own army of
1.2 million and a strong alliance with nuclear capable China.
By admitting that it has a uranium-enrichment
program, it appears that North Korea has quite literally called
America's bluff. It remains to be seen how the rest of the game
will play out.
2) ONE LINK: NORTH KOREA THREAT PART OF
US REGIONAL STRATEGY
Journalists and pundits often complain
that North Korea's motives are hard to understand. We can guarantee
that after reading this article, you will have an excellent grasp
on the current situation in North Korea. It provides a clear and
comprehensive explanation of the strategies being played out in
the region, including the relationship between North Korea, Japan,
China, and the US, specific US plans for missile defense systems
in the area, and why the broken promises of the 1994 Agreed Framework
may have prompted North Korea to admit to having a nuclear weapons
program.
From the article: "The Bush administration
may not be interested in removing North Korea from the threat
list. A perceived North Korean threat is necessary to justify
building the Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system, intended to
counter China's growing military and political power. With China's
economy growing at seven percent, it is only a matter of time
before it dwarfs Japan in power and strategic influence. This
worries sectors of Japan's government, especially the military
establishment, and also concerns the Bush administration, who
do not want to see U.S. regional power and economic interests
threatened by China. Since neither the U.S. nor Japan are willing
to admit to building the new missile system to counteract a Beijing
threat, North Korea is currently being used as the primary reason
for creating the TMD in Japan."
Read this "letter from Pyongyang"
for a look inside this secretive and totalitarian country. According
to the author, "The one thing that brings foreign diplomats
and international organizations to North Korea is nuclear weapons,
or at least the threat of nuclear weapons. Without a nuclear program
North Korea would be seen as nothing more than a tiny, sparsely
populated, hermit kingdom with a totalitarian regime. Although
it is starving, there would be little outcry and little attention
would be paid. But with a nuclear program in place, North Korea
can command the attention of the world, or at least those parts
of it willing to trade aid for nonproliferation." Although
this letter was written in August, the author accurately predicted
that a resumption of the nuclear program would come soon: "The
nuclear deal’s problem is that oil deliveries are far behind,
construction of the reactors is delayed, and the Bush administration
is unwilling to work constructively with Pyongyang, so there is
now a greater chance that Kim Jong Il will resurrect the nuclear
program for political purposes." http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2002/ja02/ja02anonymous.html
This is an excellent article which traces
the military and diplomatic maneuvers between North Korea and
the US from 1950 until the last presidential election. The main
point of the article is that cooperative threat-reduction works
with North Korea. Apparently, North Korea has been trying to reduce
its enmity with the US since the '80s; it was a misreading of
North Korean strategy that almost led to war in 1994, since the
country actually only acts in response to US actions in a sort
of tit-for-tat diplomacy. If the US makes a concession, North
Korea does so as well. The author warns that although the advisors
in the Bush administration regard cooperation with disdain it
is the only way to end any threat from North Korea. As he says,
"The way to eliminate the nuclear, missile, and conventional
threats from North Korea is to put an end to enmity." http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/15/sigal-l.html
4) "AXIS OF EVIL"
In his State of the Union address shortly
after the events of Sept. 11, President Bush named North Korea
as part of his controversial "axis of evil" along with
Iraq and Iran.
According to Foreign Policy in Focus, the
"axis of evil" remark was part of a general tendency
to ostracize North Korea despite the country's attempts at cooperation.
This may be part of the larger plan of using North Korea as an
excuse to develop the US military plans for the region, which
include building controversial missile defense systems in South
Korea. Even though this report was written in February 2002, before
the reported nuclear weapons admission, it predicted that 2003
would be the breaking point for US-North Korea relations. http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/
papers/asia2002_body.html#korea
A month after calling North Korea part
of the "axis of evil," President Bush traveled to South
Korea and laid the blame for lack of peace between North and South
Korea on North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. While Bush supported
South Korean President Kim Dae Jung's "sunshine policy"
of attempted reconciliation with North Korea, for which Kim received
a Nobel Peace Prize in 2000, he also said that the policy isn't
working. http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0221/p06s01-woap.html
In October, US Assistant Secretary of State
James Kelly visited North Korea on the first diplomatic US mission
to the country since Bush's infamous "axis of evil"
speech. According to the US, when Kelly confronted North Korea
with evidence that it had been engaging in nuclear activities,
North Korean officials admitted that they had indeed been conducting
a uranium-enrichment program. The admission stunned the international
community. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/
nkorea021017_nuclear.html
The Federation of American Scientists (FAS)
provides information on North Korea's current weapons status,
which includes an outline of the Agreed Framework that North Korea
has apparently broken, as well as a general history of North Korea's
weapons status. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html
In retaliation for North Korea's reported
admission, in November the Bush administration and its allies
in the region announced their decision to stop vital fuel oil
aid to North Korea. President Bush demanded that North Korea end
its program but stated that there are no plans for military action
against North Korea. Unfortunately, the fuel oil aid will be cut
off just before the North Korean winter. http://news.beststar.com/ll/english/1235486.shtml
Reportedly, during Kelly's visit, North
Korea said it would end its nuclear weapons program in exchange
for a visit from President Bush, the signing of a non-aggression
treaty, a peace accord, and the lifting of all economic sanctions
(although this article focuses mainly on the visit from President
Bush.) According to Kelly, "If North Korea thinks that the
United States will agree to a new framework because it has broken
the Agreed Framework, then it is totally mistaken." http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/4623390.htm
While North Korea has admitted to having
a nuclear weapons program, no one is sure whether the country
has admitted to actually possessing nuclear weapons. The difference
in interpretation relies on one syllable of a Korean news report.
Amid international debate, a recent announcement from North Korea
claims that the original statement was that they are entitled
to have nuclear weapons, not that they already have them. http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=353576
There is a difference between having some
enriched uranium and producing an actual bomb, according to respected
nuclear physicist Frank Barnaby. According to Barnaby, "A
programme could just be a few people thinking about it." http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992938
The UN is already calling on the country
to accept inspections. On November 30th the International Atomic
Energy Agency, the nuclear-monitoring arm of the United Nations,
called on North Korea to abandon any nuclear weapons program it
may have and accept a senior inspecting team. The statement issued
by the agency said that North Korea's claim that it was entitled
to nuclear weapons violated its agreements under the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty. However, no deadline was issued, and the agency has no
enforcing powers--any enforcement would need to be done by the
UN Security Council. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/30/1038386354809.html
Interestingly, Pakistan may have aided
North Korea with its nuclear weapons program back in the '90s,
by exchanging its enriched uranium technology for North Korean
missile technology. The Bush administration may even have known
this and kept quiet about it once Pakistan became its ally in
the "war on terrorism." http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/
4356687.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
6) IMPLICATIONS
In a very clear and useful article, CNN
lists the "dramatic steps" that North Korea has taken
over the past year in an attempt to improve relations with the
rest of the world. According to the article, these include:
Creating a capitalist-style "special
administrative region" of Sinuijiu on the Chinese border.
Reconciling with neighbor South Korea
through talks and the building of railway lines.
Admitting the abduction of Japanese
citizens during the 1970s and early 80s, which has helped create
trust between the two countries as Japan has worked on normalizing
relations with North Korea.
According to CNN, the final goal of North
Korea is to end tensions with the US, by using its nuclear weapons
program as a bargaining chip--i.e., North Korea will end its nuclear
weapons program if the US will normalize relations. http://asia.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/10/22/
nkorea.perspective/
The reported admission of nuclear weapons
capability by North Korea could potentially cause two problems
for the US. First, "that a new crisis might erupt on the
divided and heavily armed Korean peninsula, where 35,000 US troops
are stationed. It has been described as 'the most dangerous place
on Earth.' " Second, "that the restrained US reaction
will lead to accusations that America operates double standards
in its dealings with Iraq and North Korea, making the search for
a tough United Nations resolution against Saddam Hussein even
trickier." The difficulty in pursuing a direct policy in
this case is compounded by the difficulty that analysts are having
understanding North Korea's motives. http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=343666
This great article makes the valuable point
that the general double-standard of the US is at play in the situation
with Korea; namely, that the US is allowed to have weapons of
mass destruction, and its allies are as well, but countries that
do not support the US are not allowed to have such weapons.
"President Kim Jong Il of North Korea
has obviously failed to comprehend that only those countries sanctioned
by America and its close allies are permitted to develop nuclear
weapons in this unipolar world. Other nuclear powers, such as
India and Pakistan, are tolerated as long as they keep their policies
in line with those of Washington.
Still, all is not lost as North Korea is
not Iraq, does not have oil and further, does not have its sights
on Washington's de facto protectorate, Israel. It may, therefore,
manage to escape the Bush administration's list of potential targets
for enforced regime change." http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14421
7) CREDITS
Research team:
Dean Bellerby, Joanne Comito, Anna Gavula, Keiko Hatch, Russ Juskalian,
Maha Mikhail, Vicki Nikolaidis, Kim Plofker, Ben Spencer, Ora
Szekely, and Sharon Winn.
Proofreading team:
David Taub Bancroft, Madlyn Bynum, Carol Brewster, Melinda Coyle,
Nancy Evans, Anne Haehl, Mary Kim, Dagmara Meijers-Troller, and
Alfred K. Weber.
8) ABOUT THE MOVEON PEACE BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG
The MoveOn Peace Bulletin is a free, biweekly
email bulletin providing information, resources, and news related
to important peace and international issues. The full text of
the MoveOn Peace Bulletin is online at: http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin.php3#sub
; users can subscribe to the bulletin at that address also.
MoveOn.org does not necessarily endorse
all of the views espoused on the pages that we link to, nor do
we vouch for their accuracy. Read them at your own risk.
The MoveOn Peace Bulletin is a project
of MoveOn.org. MoveOn.org is a US-based issue-oriented, nonpartisan,
nonprofit organization that gives people a voice in shaping the
laws and policies that affect their lives. MoveOn.org engages
people in the civic process, using the Internet to democratically
determine a non-partisan agenda, raising public awareness of pressing
issues, and coordinating grassroots advocacy campaigns to encourage
sound national and international policies.
To be kept informed about actions and campaigns,
many of which are related to bulletin topics, you can sign up
for MoveOn's action updates, at: http://www.moveon.org/keepmeposted/
1) Introduction: Still on the Brink
2) One Link: What Does the US Hope to Gain?
3) UNSC Resolutions: Stopping War, or Justifying It?
4) Potential Coalition Members
5) Current Preparations
6) US Strategy and Troops
7) Iraqi Strategy, and the Possibility of Success
8) Costs
9) Casualties and Humanitarian Consequences
10) Regime Change
11) Long Term Geopolitical Consequences
12) Effects on Veterans
13) Next?
14) Free Booklet Offer
15) Credits
16) Get Involved
17) About the Bulletin
1) INTRODUCTION: STILL ON THE BRINK
Will there be a war on Iraq in the next
few months? The UN has passed the US/UK resolution on Iraq. Some
argue that this has blocked the possibility of war for the time
being. Weapons inspectors have arrived in Baghdad, and the optimistic
view is that Iraqi compliance with these inspections could yet
stave off conflict.
Yet while the rest of the world continues
to stress the importance of the inspections, the US remains intent
on war. The Bush administration has made it clear that the inspections
are little more than a delay before the inevitable full-blown
attack. For example, the US very recently characterized Iraqi
anti-aircraft fire as a "material breach" of the UN
resolution, questioned the competence of Chief Inspector Hans
Blix, and flat-out stated that even if the weapons inspectors
find nothing, the US will still assume that Iraq has weapons of
mass destruction. Nor have current preparations indicated any
withdrawal of aggression. Intimidating numbers of US troops and
equipment are now within striking distance of the Iraqi border.
US and British planes have been flying missions over the Iraqi
no-fly zones that are knocking out more important targets with
more frequency. Diplomatic preparations for the war, which include
negotiating participation in a US-led coalition, are being made
in earnest. And US plans for a post-Hussein regime are apparently
in the final stages of discussion.
Meanwhile, Dec. 8th is fast approaching.
It is the deadline for the government of Iraq to release a complete
report detailing its weapons capabilities. If the report is incomplete,
late, or otherwise unsatisfactory, it is likely that Iraq will
be declared to be in "material breach" of the UNSC resolution.
The US may then draft a new resolution authorizing war to be presented
to the UN, probably largely due to international pressure to once
again ensure international consensus before acting. Or the US
may argue that a new resolution is not needed, and launch a war
on Iraq without UN approval. Some British reports have already
pinpointed the official start date of a new Iraq war as Dec. 16.
So there are many indications that we remain
on the brink of Gulf War II. As the gap between threat and action
continues to close, a much clearer picture of the strategies,
tactics, and potential consequences of the war is emerging. Based
on current reporting and the statements of US officials, it is
even possible to begin to piece together a general idea of what
the war could look like, from start to finish. For example, it
seems clear now that 200,000 to 260,000 US troops will be involved,
including reserve troops; that plans for a post-Hussein regime
all seem to include an immediate period of rule by a US military
regime, headed by a US general; and that a new Gulf War could
potentially kill 500,000 civilians, according to conservative
estimates.
We are loath to accept the idea that an
Iraq war is already a foregone conclusion and this bulletin is
not meant as an argument for despair. Rather, now that we are
ostensibly in the crucial last days before the war, we believe
it is time to examine the war plans being laid in order to stop
them.
Now more than ever, it's time to work for
peace.
2) ONE LINK: GOALS OF THE
WAR
What does the US hope to gain from Gulf
War II? According to the Bush administration, the goal is to disarm
Iraq, thereby making the world a safer place, and helping win
the "war on terrorism." Yet not everyone believes that
this is an accurate statement of the goals of the war. "[A]t
first sight, the longer-term gains for the US look pretty limited,
whereas the consequences of failure would be catastrophic. A general
Middle Eastern conflagration and the collapse of more pro-Western
Arab states would lose us the war against terrorism, doom untold
thousands of Western civilians to death in coming decades, and
plunge the world economy into depression,” writes Anatol
Lieven, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace. So why is the current administration still risking it?
In this thoughtful article from the London Review of Books, Lievens
proposes several reasons:
• to scare the countries in the region
into capitulating to US and Israeli interests
• to secure access to oil
• to counter the threat of competition from China by surrounding
it http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n19/liev01_.html
3) UNSC RESOLUTIONS: STOPPING WAR, OR JUSTIFYING
IT?
The UN Security Council (UNSC) unanimously
passed the US/UK resolution regarding Iraq on Nov. 8. It requires
Iraq to accept weapons inspections, and to provide a detailed
report on their weapons capabilities by Dec. 8. The full official
text of the UNSC resolution can be found at: http://daccess-ods.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26
/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement
The question now is whether the US will
seek a new UN resolution before actually launching an attack on
Iraq, or if it will launch an attack on its own and justify it
based on the language of the current resolution. Unfortunately,
there are still gray areas in the resolution that the US could
cite as permission to attack Iraq. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,834986,00.html
Yet while the Bush administration insists
that "[i]f the Security Council fails to act decisively in
the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not
constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against
the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations
resolutions," Stephen Zunes, an associate professor of politics
and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University
of San Francisco, argues that the resolution does NOT authorize
the US to use force against Iraq. Some key pieces of diplomatic
language make it clear that the US is to seek a new UN resolution
first. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1114-03.htm
Iraqi officials are "staggered"
by the extent of access that the weapons inspection team is demanding,
and are concerned that they may have difficulty meeting the Dec.
8 deadline for the submission of their detailed report on Iraq's
weapons capabilities. Any tardiness in submitting the report could
be seen as a "material breach" of the UN resolution
and could be used to justify war. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=353927
Weapons inspectors have arrived in Iraq,
but Hans Blix, the chief inspector, is accusing Washington of
being behind a smear campaign that appears designed to discredit
him. According to the Guardian, "The US whispering campaign
against Mr Blix, a former Swedish diplomat, may be designed to
undercut any report that is favourable to Iraq," and thus
help justify war. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,842944,00.html
Columnist Charley Reese comments that "Saddam
will have a greater problem if he doesn't have any weapons of
mass destruction. If he has some, he can turn them in; if he doesn't,
he's stuck with trying to prove a negative, which is impossible.
How can anyone prove he does not have something to a person who
won't take his word for it? No matter how much searching the arms
inspectors do, if there is nothing to find, the Bush administration
will likely claim it's still hidden somewhere." http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20021120/index.php
What if no weapons of mass destruction
are found by U.N. weapons inspectors inside Iraq? According to
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "What it would prove
would be that the inspection process had been successfully defeated
by the Iraqis. There's no question but that the Iraqi regime is
clever, they've spent a lot of time hiding things, dispersing
things, tunneling underground." In other words, war will
go ahead either way. Rumsfeld has also been promising that a war
on Iraq won't last more than five months. http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/15/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html
Richard Perle has also stated that the
success of the weapons inspections will not stop US war plans.
Perle told British M.P.'s "I cannot see how Hans Blix can
state more than he can know. All he can know is the results of
his own investigations. And that does not prove Saddam does not
have weapons of mass destruction." http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm
?objectid=12377231&method=full&siteid=5014
The US has appeared impatient about waiting
for the "failure" of the weapons inspections. The US
government recently claimed that Iraqi fire at US warplanes over
the "no-fly" zones is a contravention of the security
council resolution. The UN's secretary general has been quick
to disagree with this interpretation of the resolution in the
midst of concerns that the US could use this an an "automatic
trigger for war." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1119-01.htm
4) POTENTIAL COALITION MEMBERS
Who is likely to support an attack on Iraq?
If the US doesn't seek a new UN resolution, it will probably be
difficult for the US to find support.
Arab states such as Jordan and Egypt fear
that if they support the US war, they will "face an eruption
of domestic anger" that could threaten their own regimes.
In contrast, Israeli leader Ariel Sharon has vowed to attack back
if Hussein attacks Israel, raising the specter of another Arab-Israeli
war. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/2239277.stm
5) CURRENT PREPARATIONS
The foundation for war with Iraq is being
carefully laid, both diplomatically and militarily . This is an
excellent overview of the Bush administration's current efforts
to build international support for a war on Iraq, with an eye
towards creating a coalition as well as gaining support for a
possible new UN resolution authorizing the use of force. Some
information on troops and equipment is also provided. http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/11.20E.up.lay.iraq.htm
The US is already amassing troops near
Iraq as part of "training exercises", and is bombing
the "no-fly" zones frequently, which, according to this
article, is to help cripple Iraq's air defense systems in preparation
for a US attack. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/nov2002/iraq-n06.shtml
November through February is the optimal
window for an Iraq campaign, given seasonal considerations of
daylight, temperature, and climate, military experts say. http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0913/p01s02-usmi.html
In April, General Tommy Franks told senior
Pentagon officers that a new war against Iraq would likely take
five divisions and 200,000 troops. At the time, other officials
said it was more likely that a second Gulf War would rely on fewer
ground troops than suggested by Gen. Franks, and be "more
air-centric." http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020426-41274916.htm
The most recent reports indicate that the
plan to use 200,000 troops still stands, but it will be part of
a strategy of swift surgical strikes aimed at ending the conflict
as quickly as possible. Air and ground operations will occur almost
simultaneously. http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1112/p01s01-usmi.html
The Guardian offers an excellent guide
which explains the five main phases of a possible US war on Iraq.
A short overview of possible casualties is also offered for each
phase. Apparently there is the chance that Hussein may use nerve
gas against US troops. If nuclear war erupts (which could happen
if Iraq attacks Israel and Israel retaliates) some 4 million Iraqis
could be killed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,650132,00.html
(flash animation)
7) IRAQI STRATEGY, AND THE POSSIBILITY
OF SUCCESS
Would it be easy to win a war against Iraq?
That seems to be the general assumption, especially in light of
the recent "success" in Afghanistan.
Donald Rumsfeld has predicted that a war
on Iraq will be short. On Nov. 14, he said, "I can't say
if the use of force would last five days or five weeks or five
months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
However, this prediction may be strategically ill-informed. Dr.
Tony Dodge, an expert on Iraq, contends that war on Iraq this
time will be much different than in the first Gulf War, and could
be long and bloody. http://commondreams.org/headlines02/1116-04.htm
Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF) provides
seven reasons to oppose the Iraq war, the seventh of which is
that defeating Iraq would be militarily difficult. According to
FPIF, it is a mistake to compare a new Gulf War to the first Gulf
War, or even the war on Afghanistan, because:
Iraq’s offensive capabilities have
been weakened but its defensive military capabilities remain
strong.
In the first Gulf War, only two of
the eight divisions of the elite Iraqi Republican Guard were
ever in Kuwait, and they pulled back before the war began in
mid-January. Meanwhile, Iraq’s strongest forces were withdrawn
to areas around Baghdad to fight for the survival of the regime
itself, where they remain.
Iraq has a far more sophisticated infrastructure
than the largely rural and tribal Afghanistan that could be
mobilized in the event of a foreign invasion.
The lack of support from regional allies
could result in an absence of a land base from which to launch
US aerial attacks.
US soldiers could be faced with bitter,
house-to-house fighting (including in Baghdad, a city of 5 million
people).
There is no Iraqi equivalent to Afghanistan’s
Northern Alliance to fight the war for the US. The Kurds have
been abandoned twice by the US and the armed Shiite opposition
has largely been eliminated.
There is the possibility of ongoing
guerrilla action by Saddam Hussein’s supporters.
Without Saddam Hussein's regime, it
is likely that Iraq could erupt into civil war, leaving the
US faced with fighting to maintain peace in the midst of competing
armed factions.
Iraqi defectors disagree about how hard
Iraqi troops would fight to repel a US attack. They point out
that the Iraqi military has been split into the regular army and
the Iraqi Republican Guard and special forces, the latter being
charged with protecting the Hussein regime. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/
nm/20021115/wl_nm/iraq_military_dc_2
While some Iraqi troops may defect, others
may fight hard, especially since they will be defending their
homeland rather than a new acquisition (as in the case of Kuwait).
Hussein may also use his weapons of mass destruction in defense
of his regime, assuming he has them. The conclusion this paper
draws is that "...an American military victory against Iraq
is imminently achievable. The only question remains: at what cost?" http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/primer-iraq.cfm
It appears that Iraq may be planning on
concentrating its 400,000 troops in cities, forcing the US to
fight a ground battle in major centers rather than a desert battle,
which would give the US a better chance to use air strikes. This
"street-level" combat would result in higher numbers
of Iraqi civilian casualties, and higher numbers of US casualties
as well--probably much higher than in other recent wars. However,
experts disagree about whether or not US soldiers would get "bogged
down" as a result of the strategy. http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,771600,00.html
Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, former
head of Central Command for U.S. forces in the Middle East, spoke
at the Middle East Institute's annual conference, and offered
his own predictions and reservations about war with Iraq. According
to Zinni, success in Iraq can't be measured purely by military
outcomes, but rather in political terms, i.e., whether the political
goals of the war are accomplished. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14317
Rep. Ron Paul lists some of the unintended
consequences that he thinks could come from a war on Iraq. Highly
recommended. http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul55.html
8) COSTS
William Nordhaus, Sterling professor of
economics at Yale University, has stated that "One way or
another, Americans will pay for the war." Based on recent
studies, Professor Nordhaus estimates that in a best-case scenario,
the war will cost about $50 billion US dollars, with reconstruction
efforts costing anywhere from $20 billion to $500 billion. If
the war becomes protracted, costs could easily climb higher. This
is bearing in mind that the US only paid about $2 billion for
the first Gulf War, because Saudi Arabia picked up the tab for
the rest; in a new Gulf War, the US will be solely responsible
for the costs. http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=20419
The International Physicians for the Prevention
of Nuclear War have released a new report which predicts that
a US-led attack on Iraq could kill between 48,000 and 260,000
civilians and combatants in just the first three months of conflict.
According to the report, post-war health effects could take an
additional 200,000 lives. http://www.ippnw.org/CollateralDamage.html
The humanitarian crisis that would ensue
as the result of a new war would include the creation of 1.5 million
refugees. Yet unlike Afghanistan, there is currently no infrastructure
for dealing with such a crisis. http://www.refugeesinternational.org/cgi-bin/ri/oped.html?oc=00071
10) REGIME CHANGE
This article asks, "Is the Bush administration's
promise to create a democratic paradise in a post-Saddam Iraq
for real -- or just more salesmanship for war?" Based on
the poor results of reconstruction in the former Yugoslavia, the
answer is that the US can't be counted on to follow through on
its promises. http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6750
The Bush administration has revealed that
they plan to install an American military regime in Iraq, to remain
in place for several years. It would closely resemble the post-war
occupation of Japan, and would likely be run by a US general,
such as General Tommy Franks. The occupation would require 75,000
troops, and would probably cost about $16 billion dollars. http://www.edinburghnews.com/index.cfm?id=1132572002
Recent reports suggest that a US military
regime is just the first part of a three-stage plan for governing
a post-war Iraq. The following two stages would include a vaguely
defined "international civilian administration," and
finally "a representative, multiethnic Iraqi government after
some sort of constitutional convention." The plan was created
by an interagency task force named the Executive Steering Group. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N2359238
The Sunday Herald lists the top contenders
for Saddam Hussein's job, all of whom are described as "thugs." http://www.sundayherald.com/27877
Interestingly, one of current top prospects
to fight Saddam Hussein's regime, the Iraqi National Congress
(INC) was completely engineered by the Rendon Group, a public
relations firm with links to the US administration. The leader
of the INC, who could be picked to replace Saddam Hussein, has
very little support among the Iraqi people, meaning that he may
not gain their support. This excellent article also very cogently
summarizes the past exploits of public relations firms in the
build-up to US wars, and especially the first Gulf War. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK13Ak01.html
A private US firm, under contract with
the State Department, is "training Iraqi exiles in economics,
accountancy and finance in preparation for restructuring the country's
state-controlled system into a Western, market-driven economy."
This training is part of the "Future of Iraq Project." http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/11.17D.train.iraqis.htm
Will a regime change lead to more stability
in the Middle East? This is a very interesting article which examines
the aims of a new Gulf War in light of the history of the Middle
East, and compares the planned US-led regime change in Iraq to
the regime change carried out there by the British in the 30's.
Both regime changes, according to the author, are explicitly related
to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and unless that conflict
is solved, it is unlikely that a new regime change will be successful
in stabilizing the region. Note that this article refers to comments
by involved parties that indicate that the goal of a post-Gulf
War II regime is to create "a non-Arab Iraq." http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=843
11) LONG-TERM GEOPOLITICAL CONSEQUENCES
Even a successful war effort in Iraq could
have long-term consequences that we aren't currently able to imagine.
This excellent article overviews the results of interviews with
a diverse group of experts, and in the process, debunks some of
the common assumptions about a war on Iraq, including the idea
that it could be quick in-and-out war, and the idea that installing
a democratic regime is possible. However, the ultimate point of
the article is that we need to look beyond the short-term consequence
of war on Iraq.
"Wars change history in ways no one can foresee. The Egyptians
who planned to attack Israel in 1967 could not imagine how profoundly
what became the Six Day War would change the map and politics
of the Middle East. After its lightning victory Israel seized
neighboring territory, especially on the West Bank of the Jordan
River, that is still at the heart of disputes with the Palestinians.
Fifty years before, no one who had accurately foreseen what World
War I would bring could have rationally decided to let combat
begin. The war meant the collapse of three empires, the Ottoman,
the Austro-Hungarian, and the Russian; the cresting of another,
the British; the eventual rise of Hitler in Germany and Mussolini
in Italy; and the drawing of strange new borders from the eastern
Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf, which now define the battlegrounds
of the Middle East. Probably not even the United States would
have found the war an attractive bargain, even though the U.S.
rise to dominance began with the wounds Britain suffered in those
years." http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/11/fallows.htm
12) EFFECTS ON VETERANS
Soldiers in a new Gulf War would be facing
the possibility of exposing themselves to the same environmental
factors which are currently being blamed for a constellation of
illnesses referred to by the general name of "Gulf War Syndrome."
For one thing, any ground troops would be exposed to depleted
uranium, or DU, left over from the first Gulf War, which may be
to blame for high rates of cancer and birth defects both among
Iraqi civilians and veterans of 1990 Gulf War.
Probably one of the best guides on Gulf
War Syndrome is this one, provided by the National Gulf War Resource
Center. If you have the time, you may want to read through the
entire thing, which explains the possible relation of veterans'
illnesses to chemicals, weapons, pollutants, and diseases which
were present in the Gulf War environment. According to the guide,
110,000 American Gulf War veterans have reported health problems
since their service. http://www.ngwrc.org/shg/page2.html
For information on training techniques,
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and other issues affecting veterans
in general, please see MoveOn's previous bulletin, "Learning
to Kill" at: http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin41.php3
13) NEXT?
Iran, which President Bush has listed as
part of the "axis of evil," is a likely future target.
If the US successfully attacks Iraq, it would be in the ideal
position to attack Iran, or possibly Syria or Lebanon. According
to this article, Israel regards Iran as a major competitor, and
much more of a nuclear threat than Iraq; thus Israel is advocating
that Iran be next. http://www.foreigncorrespondent.com/archive/next_target.html
Does Saddam Hussein's regime pose a "mortal
threat" to the US and Iraq's neighbors? How have sanctions
imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait affected ordinary
Iraqis? How has the Iraqi regime stayed in power despite its defeat
in the Gulf war and a decade of sanctions? Has the US attempted
to end the 12-year confrontation between Iraq and the UN through
peaceful diplomacy? What drives the Bush administration's policy
of "regime change"?
In a concise backgrounder (15 page booklet)
published by the Middle East Research and Information Project
(MERIP), Sarah Graham-Brown, author of Sanctioning Saddam (1999),
and Chris Toensing, editor of Middle East Report, offer answers
to the major questions swirling around the Iraq crisis of 2002.
The backgrounder is ideal for all settings -- classrooms, church
meetings, union hall discussion, teach-ins, student groups, peace
vigils, ect. While supplies last, order whatever number your group
can realistically distribute. There is no charge whatsoever.
To order copies or for further information,
contact MERIP at ctoensing@merip.org. MERIP can ship to US addresses
only.
If you want to peruse the backgrounder
first, it is available online at: http://www.merip.org
An updated second edition of MERIP's Iraq
backgrounder will soon be available in print at no charge, while
supplies last. If you are interested, contact MERIP at ctoensing@merip.org.
MERIP can ship to US addresses only.
15) CREDITS
Research team:
Dean Bellerby, Joanne Comito, Anna Gavula, Wendy Hamblet, Keiko
Hatch, Russ Juskalian, Mary Kim, Maha Mikhail, Vicki Nikolaidis,
Ben Spencer, Ora Szekely, and Sharon Winn.
Proofreading team:
David Taub Bancroft, Madlyn Bynum, Carol Brewster, Melinda Coyle,
Nancy Evans, Anne Haehl, Mary Kim, Dagmara Meijers-Troller, Leslie
Strudwick and Alfred K. Weber.
16) GET INVOLVED
If you would like us to include an action,
news article, or source for more information in the bulletin,
please write to susan.thompson@moveon.org
and describe your item in the subject line.
17) ABOUT THE BULLETIN
The MoveOn Peace bulletin is a weekly newsletter
providing resources, news, and action ideas to over 50,000 people
around the world. The full text of the bulletin is online at http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin.php3#sub
;
users can subscribe to the bulletin
at that address also. The bulletin is a project of MoveOn.org.
Contact susan.thompson@moveon.org
for more information.
MIAMI (Reuters) - When Pentagon Papers
whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg wrote a new memoir chronicling
his decision to leak secret U.S. military documents exposing official
lies about the Vietnam War, he had no inkling the United States
could soon be at war with Iraq.
A week after the October release of his
book, "Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers,"
Congress authorized President Bush to wage war if necessary to
disarm Baghdad.
Ellsberg is busy doing what he wishes he
had done earlier during the Vietnam War -- sounding the alarm.
"I would give anything that is mine
to give to avert this war, anything truthful and nonviolent to
avert this war, which I think will be a catastrophe, and it will
usher in an age of catastrophes," Ellsberg told Reuters during
a weekend visit to the Miami Book Fair.
"The future is bleak but not hopeless.
I am trying to do what I can to at least warn people. The risks
are too great."
Ellsberg's view of the probable future
is bleak indeed.
If Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network launches
a "spectacular" terrorist attack on the United States
as the FBI has warned, it will trigger a U.S. invasion of Iraq
even if Baghdad is not involved, he predicts.
If there is no attack soon, the United
States will provoke Iraq into shooting down one of its aircraft
in the "no-fly" zones in southern and northern Iraq,
he said.
"If Saddam doesn't manage to shoot
down one of our planes, our planes will fly lower and lower,"
Ellsberg said. "We're going to be at war with Iraq well before
Christmas."
Saddam would then use poison gas against
U.S. troops, triggering a retaliatory U.S. attack on his bunkers
with earth-penetrating nuclear weapons that would inadvertently
cause mass civilian deaths and "create hundreds of thousands
of new recruits for suicide training," he said.
"I believe they (the U.S. government)
are very smart. They would have to be very stupid to believe that
this would reduce the chances of terrorism. It will increase it
sharply."
Saddam would make his weapons of mass destruction
available to al Qaeda, allowing them to stage attacks that will
wipe out Israel and many of its neighbors and prompt armies sympathetic
to Islamist causes to take over Pakistan and Indonesia and set
off a grab for Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
A NEW AGE OF BARBARISM?
"It will make it impossible for these
countries whose cooperation in hunting for al Qaeda cells is absolutely
essential," Ellsberg said. "We will no longer be able
to reduce al Qaeda's strength. ... Osama will be a hero for the
Muslim world for the next thousand years."
End result: A new age of barbarism, he
said. "The world is going to look eventually like Afghanistan
outside of Kabul."
Others have posed such doomsday scenarios,
but in the case of Iraq, the United States' military superiority
has grown so overwhelming since the 1991 Gulf war that even NATO
has been left behind. Iraq's military is much smaller than it
was. U.S. officials have said they have no intention of using
nuclear weapons against Saddam, but have warned that if he unleashes
biological or chemical agents, all bets are off.
In making his predictions, Ellsberg does
have unique credentials, albeit from a different age and a different
conflict.
The former Marine and ex-Pentagon official
was part of a defense think tank that wrote a secret study of
U.S. policy in Vietnam. The 7,000-page study, which became known
as the Pentagon Papers, revealed that four presidents had steadily
lied to the public and Congress about the U.S. war in Southeast
Asia.
Disillusioned, Ellsberg leaked it to newspapers
in 1971, setting off a furor that helped pave the way for the
U.S. pull-out from Vietnam.
Ellsberg was imprisoned on espionage charges
that were thrown out in 1973 and says he regrets only that he
did not blow the whistle sooner.
"The worst thing I ever did was help
get the bombing started" in Vietnam, he said.
He wrote his book, he said, because it
holds timeless lessons on "the folly of self-delusion."
It opens with Ellsberg's discovery that
the supposed North Vietnamese attack on a U.S. Navy ship in the
Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 probably never happened and that President
Lyndon Johnson knew it when he used the purported attack to persuade
Congress to authorize U.S. military force in the region.
Ellsberg calls the Iraq war authorization
"Tonkin Gulf II," adding: "I've studied this government's
decision-making for 44 years. I don't know these specific individuals
but I know some of their advisors. I understand that thinking.
"This war will look very, very bad
within months after it starts," he said. "This war is
an abomination that must not happen."
When American
presidents prepare for foreign wars, they lie. Since the end of
the 19th century, if not earlier, presidents have misled the public
about their motives and their intentions in going to war. The
enormous losses of life, property and liberty that Americans have
sustained in wars have occurred in large part because of the public's
unwarranted trust in what their leaders told them before leading
them into war.
In 1898, President William McKinley, having
been goaded by muscle-flexing advisers and jingoistic journalists
to make war on Spain, sought divine guidance as to how he should
deal with the Spanish possessions, especially the Philippines,
that U.S. forces had seized in what ambassador John Hay famously
described as a "splendid little war." Evidently, his
prayer was answered, because the president later reported that
he had heard "the voice of God," and "there was
nothing left for us to do but take them all and educate the Filipinos,
and uplift and Christianize them."
McKinley's motivations had little if anything
to do with uplifting the people whom William H. Taft, the first
governor-general of the Philippines, patronizingly called "our
little brown brothers," but much to do with the political
and commercial ambitions of influential expansionists such as
Captain Alfred Mahan, Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge and
their ilk. The official apology for the brutal and unnecessary
Philippine-American War was a mendacious gloss.
The Catholic Filipinos evidently did not
yearn to be "Christianized," American style, at the
point of a Springfield rifle, and resisted the U.S. imperialists
