This may not have any purpose other than venting, but right now I find it somewhat cathartic. Today I got a feeling how it must be to confront Tony Snow, or even Scott McClellan.
I have diaried and commented earlier on how the US Embassy in Norway a number of times in recent years have issued rather poorly concealed “threats” that imply that if Norwegians (or rather, our representatives) do not support current US policies — i.e. economic and military interests as well as foreign policy — the friendship between our two nations (peoples) are in danger. During the last several months, the US Ambassador and now the Deputy Chief of Missions have engaged in internet meetings and some other public discussion. I think that on the surface this is great. It is, at least apparently, a step towards a discourse which is highly necessary.
However, it seems to be more of a sham. It appears to be a media strategy, which is not directed at furthering discourse. (Yes, I know –“duh” – but it really is a farce when representatives of the US government can choose rather consistently to simply answer questions form the fringe, and knock down straw men. Naturally, there will always be some unconstructive, abusive, CT-related questions that are sent in anonymously. The decision to address such questions over others is highly indicative of the real strategy.)
At the same time, I really think that there is a great potential for some real advance in mutual understanding here. If the US Embassy, in Norway and in other countries, would take most of the questions with them from these sessions, and post the answers when they have time do address them (or a representative selection); it could be a revolutionary strategy for discourse democracy (globally in this case, domestically in others).
So, for the purpose of venting, if nothing else: here are the questions that I rather unsuccessfully tried to get addressed by the US government today. It could have been a great opportunity. I would love to see some of the same questions asked by US reporters, in such a fashion that they don’t stop until the questions are actually addressed.
Mr. Deputy Chief of Missions,
Thank you kindly for answering these two question.
According to a Zogby poll taken earlier this year, 85 % of US troops in Iraq believe that they are there to "retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks."
1) What steps should and will the US government take to correct this impression among its armed forces?
2) Is it a serious matter if US forces are fighting a war on terror (now called the Long War by the US) for all the wrong reasons?
http://www.zogby.com/...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Deputy Chief of Missions,
Thank you kindly for answering these two questions.
In the preparation for the US invasion of Iraq, both the President and the Vice President underscored not only the alleged presence of Iraqi WMDs, but also the alleged connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda as the very reason why the US invasion was “a war of last resort.” Not only were there no WMDs: We now learn that: “Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein rejected pleas for assistance from Osama bin Laden and tried to capture terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi when he was in Iraq, according to a Senate Intelligence Committee report released Friday.”
(http://www.dfw.com/...)
1) What was the primary reason for invading Iraq, and how did Iraq pose a more imminent threat to your country than other states which the US considers to be adversarial?
2) Has the invasion made the US, Iraq and the World safer?
___________________
Mr. Deputy Chief of Missions,
September 11 2001 will for ever remain a date of tragedy. Almost 3.000 people perished in the attacks upon the US on that day.
A half year later, an even higher number of civilians had lost their lives in a gruesome air war waged by the US upon Afghanistan. This conservative estimate have been made by scholars, who continue: "What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002] civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan."
(Professor Marc W. Herold
Ph.D., M.B.A., B.Sc., http://www.cursor.org/...)
With high level of support for the war at the time, the US explained the bombings with arguments like this: “March 2002
When U.S. warplanes strafed [with AC-130 gunships] the farming village of Chowkar-Karez, 25 miles north of Kandahar on October 22-23rd,killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official said, "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead." The reason? They sympathized with the Taliban(1). When asked about the Chowkar incident, Rumsfeld replied, "I cannot deal with that particular village."(2)”
The widely held belief that the war was one of necessity seems to be challenged by the events that occurred at the time: “Their initial responses demanded evidence of bin Laden's culpability in the September 11th attacks and included a proposal to try him in an Islamic court. Later, as the likelihood of military action became more imminent, they offered to extradite bin Laden to a neutral nation. Moderates within the Taliban allegedly met with American embassy officials in Pakistan in mid-October to work out a way to convince Mullah Muhammed Omar to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. and avoid its impending retaliation. President Bush rejected these offers made by the Taliban as insincere.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/...)
The bottom line is: You could have had bin Laden. Bush preferred to go to war. The Taliban was an authoritarian regime, but that did not stop Bush from trying to normalize relations in order to secure a pipeline deal up until the fall of 2001. This was a war of choice, with consequences even worse than 9/11, tragic as those events were.
Judging from the results thus far: Was it worth it?
Many thanks for your reply.
______________________
Mr. Deputy Chief of Missions,
I realize that you have little time.
I ask you, please disregard the "straw man" and "tinfoil" questions, so that more time can be spent answering the questions that I'm sure thousands would like to see addressed. This is such a rare opportunity.
Thank you again.
_________________
Mr. Deputy Chief of Missions,
You said [in the answer to another question]: "One must distinguish between just use of force and unjust use of force, but one can't abandon defense of one's country and family."
Would you extend that right to the Iraqis and Afghans whose families have been bombed?
I’m hoping for an answer to some of my questions, but even if you don’t have time to answer them now or later, perhaps you could acknowledge that you have read them by publishing them here anyway?
Again, many thanks for your reply.
________________________
Mr. Deputy Chief of Missions,
You said: "Those of us who believe in democracy have a simple answer to the alternatives you raise: let the people of Afghanistan choose."
So if the people of Afghanistan (a majority) were to choose the Taliban, would you support them? Would your government try to normalize relations as they did before 9/11, seeking a good deal on that pipeline?
I'm hoping for a reply to some of my questions.
Many thanks.
____________________
You said: “The liberation of women in Afghanistan is one key success (partial but real) as well.”
Surely, Sir, you must be joking? Some formal representation, under constant threats, yes; but liberation? A key success?
“Picture bleak for women in Afghanistan”
http://www.boston.com/...
“Afghan women protest against reintroduction of 'vice and virtue police'”
http://www.alertnet.org/...
“Afghan women continue to be among the worst-off in the world, especially in measures of health; poverty; deprivation of rights and protection against violence; in education and literacy; and public participation. Afghan women die at least 20 years younger than other women in the world.”
http://www.reliefweb.int/...
Much to my surprise, my first question was eventually answered. Well, not really. I’m actually amazed at how it seems like routine for US officials to answer questions by talking about something else entirely, in stead of addressing the questions that were asked. That goes not only for US officials of course, but they have turned it into an art form, compared to which, the performance of my own representatives can only reach the level of Mannerism.
Thank you kindly for answering this question.
According to a Zogby poll taken earlier this year, 85 % of US troops in Iraq believe that they are there to "retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks."
1) What steps should and will the US government take to correct this impression among its armed forces?
2) Is it a serious matter if US forces are fighting a war on terror (now called the Long War by the US) for all the wrong reasons?
http://www.zogby.com/...
…..
We have no evidence that Saddam was at all connected to the 9/11 attacks. We do know that Al Qaida (eg Zarquawi) has training bases in Iraq and had a poison development plan underway there.
Saddam was a threat to the region, to us, and to his own people. Removing a man who invaded two neighbors, killed 300,000 of his own people and used weapons of mass destruction was a very good thing. If Iraq can become a stable democracy, it will help improve the situation in the Middle East. Our soldiers are doing heroic work as part of a plan to help Iraq'a people overcome a terrible history and move toward the future. That is difficult, but vital.
Kevin
I know this is nothing new, but the blatant disregard for the content of my questions just seems to border on bizarre.
My main argument, then, is summed up in my last question, which was not accepted, as the Q&A-session closed with the DCM’s answer to my first question.
Discourse
Thank you for your reply to one of my questions.
I'm sorry, but the US Administration's War on Specifics is perhaps the least conducive to public enlightenment anywhere. I feel somewhat uncertain as to the purpose of these exercises, but I hope there will be an opportunity to ask these questions again. Frankly, until they are answered and accountability assigned, I don’t see how you can win the Long War. What we need is a Real War on Terror (Fear). I submit to you that such an information revolution would not be conducive to GOP incumbency. This may seem at an internal matter for the US, but in my opinion it is a matter of utmost importance for the World.
Not that I think Kevin could care less.