The annual Los Angeles Times Festival of Books is a venue that provides opportunities for readers and authors to interact and exchange ideas. Such a panel convened on 29 April 2007 in UCLA’s Ackerman Grand Ballroom. “Iraq: What’s Next?” was moderated by Nancy Snow, Fullerton Associate Professor of Communications at California State University. It’s a large space and every seat appeared to be taken. ( Video available on C-Span)
T. Christian Miller, award-winning Los Angeles Times journalist and author of the widely-acclaimed, “Blood Money: Wasted Billions, Lost Lives, and Corporate Greed in Iraq”, opened the discussion with a summary of his investigations into the privatisation of Iraq’s reconstruction, or as he put it, “what came after hubris and before the fiasco.” Miller doesn’t see much chance left for rebuilding Iraq and none so long as conflict rages on. At one point, Snow reminded him that his book ended on a more positive note, that following WWII, “Operation Rat Hole” evolved into the Marshall Plan, and it’s “not too late” for that now. He replied that Chris Hedges was right in saying that the situation today in Iraq is a proxy war and he could think of no near-term solution for turning that around. Hedge’s response [41:06] is the most introspective and challenging commentary of the event, in my opinion.
William Langewiesche, international editor for Vanity Fair and author of “The Atomic Bazaar: The Rise of the Nuclear Poor”, advised Americans to wake up – democracy is not the cure-all that must be “taught” to Iraqis; they are not ignorant. He was adamant there’ll be no positive outcome in Iraq “no matter what we do” but the U.S. should not cop out to a facile withdrawal and just abandon it. “There is no solution for the United States…..no choice but to continue to pay for the error.”
Robert Scheer’s wake-up call – adults are not watching the store and haven’t been since Lyndon Johnson was president – is an alarm that Scheer’s grasp on the history of presidents lying the citizenry into war is short and slippery. On leaving Iraq he recalled years wasted on so-called moral arguments against withdrawing from Vietnam saying predictions were wrong then and ignorance prevails now. Not only is he okay with giving billions more to the DC kids so long as there are guidelines in place, and encouraged constituents to insist upon it, he’s incredibly hopeful about Iraq now that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are finally holding the president accountable. He urged listeners to cheer them on.
Chris Hedges explained why he sums up ‘what’s next’ in one word: impeachment. A couple of excerpts from an eloquent argument he delivered with humility:
“We must not allow international laws and treaties, ones that set minimum standards of behaviour and provide a framework for competing social, political, economic, and religious groups and interests to resolve differences, to be discarded. The exercise of power without law is tyranny and the consequences of George Bush’s violation of the law, his creation of legal black holes that can swallow us along with those outside our gates, run in a direct line from the White House to Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo.”
“The grief visited on American and Iraqi families demands that we as citizens begin the process to restore the rule of law. The murderous rampages in Iraq demands this. The torture done in our name demands this. The empowerment of states that will act on our lawless example if we do not impeach George Bush and return to a world of standards demands this. Simple human decency demands this.”
The panellists all agreed that the occupation of Iraq will not end until the American people demand it. They dismissed as political theatre the debate concerning Bush’s then-imminent veto of the supplemental spending bill which is now a mission accomplished. Scheer became most animated when drawing parallels between Graham Greene’s “The Quiet American” and arguments for keeping troops in Iraq saying, “We have not the wisdom, we don’t understand the language, we don’t respect the history, we are not on the side of the angels in that region by any means. We do care about the oil and exploiting it, our contractors have ripped them off every which way to Sunday, that’s what’s been going on with this reconstruction. There are industries in this country that benefit from war. There is a military-industrial-complex that wants to keep the state of tension going in the world. Most Americans don’t benefit. Most Iraqis don’t benefit. So what I’m asking for is yes, let’s get out. You can get out in a negotiated way…..you can use international force. But the principle which is established in that House and Senate resolution is that we are going to get out.”
In which paragraph was the principle established, that we are going to get out?
T. Miller reiterated that robbers are still minding the store and that no good will come from U.S. involvement unless their powerful influence can be channelled into multilateral agreements.
“In the words of Ronald Reagan, ‘I paid for this microphone…..'”
Questions from the audience began with this one: “What hope can you offer for us when never mind the Republicans, the top-tier Democrats, as Mike Gravel so aptly put it, have all embraced the notion of wars of aggression as something they will opt for… They all embrace this.”
Hedges blamed powerful interests that want war because they make a lot of money off it. He criticised the anti-democratic tactics of the Democrats, specifically the party’s vilification and destruction of Ralph Nader.
Then a man in a suit jacket with a conventional haircut stood at the microphone holding Paul Findley’s book, “They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby”, so the title would be captured by the camera. Findley (R-Ill) served in Congress for 22 years. A four-year campaign against him by pro-Israel lobbyists preceded his defeat in 1982. As the Founding Chairman of the Council for the National Interest, a non-profit, non-partisan organisation that advocates for “a new direction for the Middle East“, Findley strives to remove obstacles to a national debate on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
The first ripple of protest to jostle the comfortable came when the questioner spoke these words: pro-Israel lobby.
“Yes, it’s a question to Mr. Hedges and Mr. Scheer. Last year I’d asked about the Walt-Mearsheimer paper on the pro-Israel lobby (a few grumbles) and how it pushed us to war with Iraq (more grumbles – one loud shhhhhh – grumblers are offended by the suggestion and turn up the volume) and is doing the same with Iran; it’s a war for Israel as a primary motive. Can I get a response from Mr. Scheer this year at least? And Mr. Hedges, you’d mentioned Richard Perle. He’s part of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and if you read the new biographical book about Colin Powell, (grumble crescendo peaks – moderator Snow tells the questioner to LISTEN – he finishes his question instead) Karen DeYoung says the JINSA crowd’s in charge of the Pentagon. The Washington Post editor, Karen DeYoung. Why aren’t we talking about this? Mr. Scheer, are you going to answer this year about the Walt-Mearsheimer paper?”
He turned away from the microphone and seemed to be headed for his seat.
Snow: “Look. I’m the moderator and I want you to please sit down…..”
Questioner, already gone from the microphone: “Alright, alright, alright.”
Snow: “Answer.”
Scheer: “Oh, I should answer.”
Snow: “Ha. In the words of Ronald Reagan, ‘I paid for this microphone.'”
Not sure if this was spoken to the audience or in the moment but Snow sounded triumphant.
Scheer: “Let me just say that fortunately, fortunately, in the latest Wolfowitz affair, the Jews have been absolved of responsibility since he has a Muslim lover who was very instrumental in this….”
If this is the depth of Scheer’s analytical prowess, a bigot with a penchant for crude jokes, the LA Times had reason to drop his column other than his “exposing lies used by Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq.” An objective journalist would check Riza’s resume and would never reduce her to a religious stereotype.
Scheer: “My view on the neocons is with friends like that Israel doesn’t need enemies….I don’t think the problem with the neoconservatives is some kind of pro-Israeli cabal at all. I think the problem there is that these people are, as Chris pointed out, believers in permanent revolution. And they managed to convince Bush this was a great way of advancing his career, being more successful than his father, rejecting his handlers that his father had supplied.”
Reason number two. He’s an irrational boob. What is the objective of this permanent revolution?