When power is placed in the service of vicious reaction, a language must be called into being which does its best to appropriate such obscenity of power and throw its excesses back in its face. Criticism of such language is simply squeamish or christianly--language being expected to turn the other cheek, not stick out its tongue; offer a handshake of reconciliation, not stick up a finger in an obscene, defiant gesture...
--Wole Soyinka, 1986 Nobel Laureate in Literature
Dear Fellow Mavericks,
The running joke concerning the deadline for issue #8 here at Maverick Magazine was that "we'd get the issue out before the war started in Iraq..." The humor began to fade, though, as the likelihood of such a war grew more and more real, and more and more imminent each day, and thus the deadline for completing this issue became more real, more pressing and more macabre than any of our deadlines to date.
Now, I am keenly aware that the fact that, having just climbed out of a hot tub and ambled down to my work-at-home office here in the hills of San Francisco, this island off the coast of America, this Gomorra by the Bay, any criticism I might offer of our fearless leader's efforts to sow war upon Iraq might be misinterpreted as the knee-jerk ranting of some peace-nik, Marin-hot-tubbing, anti-war liberal, and as such discounted by the pro-war "majority."
As a disclaimer, I will state for the record that I am not against war per se, that I do see scenarios in which war can be moral and just. The Gulf War did earn my very reluctant support, largely on the grounds of multi-national support for the effort.
Concerning the war our present civilian Junta is working so hard to start and so hard to sell:
The present government seems utterly disinterested in taking anything resembling moral high ground. Our present fearless leader's approach to foreign policy looks more and more like the 'might makes right' philosophy of the Roman Empire and many other defunct empires that sought to advance their own selfish interests at the expense of other nations. For America to have a stable and prosperous future, rather than the tenuous grasp of a power hungry despot, using military might to force its capitalistic, some would say 'imperialistic' will upon friends and enemies alike, then America must earn true respect, true 'dignitas' among the nations of the world.Particularly among those developing nations whose people may be ready and willing partners in America's efforts to encourage democracy and fair trade abroad, such respect is crucial. Without it, America will always be a country in conflict with others. A country in eternal conflict produces a people whose psyches are in conflict, who are not at peace. Until America sows peace, we cannot be a peaceful nation. Until we are a peaceful nation, we cannot truly prosper.
Future prosperity aside, for any country to truly claim a moral right to wage an unprovoked war on a country that it can destroy a thousand times over, several principles must be upheld. The Aggressor nation must first demonstrate clearly to both its own citizens and to the citizens of other nations the following:
1) That the Aggressor nation has first sought ALL reasonable peaceful, diplomatic and political means to circumvent military action.
2) That a clear, reasonable and credible threat, a clear and imminent danger exists--such a claim to be backed up with specific and accurate assessments of the actual weapons/threat capability the Aggresee nation possesses, and what credible scenarios for use of such weapons exists.
Neither of those two thresholds have been met here; just as they were not met in Vietnam, which is why that action and its offshoots have been so widely condemned, and such threshold was met in the first Gulf War, which is partly why that action was so widely supported by the world's civilized nations...
3) Until the President of the United States puts an end to the empty terms and insulting vagaries he uses, terms like "weapons of mass destruction" and "signs don't look encouraging," and, my personal favorite "testing my patience," which to fail to adequately describe the "situation" he claims exists, that is, a pattern of weapons development and a climate of maliciousness in Iraq that merits war, that merits the deaths of US and Iraqi citizens...until such time as the President can clearly and accurately describe the actual weapons the US believes the Iraqis to possess, and the actual, credible scenarios in which Hussein might actually use those alleged weapons...until such time, it is the duty of all citizens of good conscience to oppose any military action against Iraq.
4) By treating 9/11 as a simple matter of U.S. Security and foreign policy, the Bush administration has totally failed to address either the deep economic impact, or the real political subtext of the bombing vi's a vi's long term U.S. policy abroad, especially among nations with large Islamic populations.As it stands, by pressing for war with Iraq, while at the same time pursuing a peaceful, quiet, diplomatic aversion to any crisis with the North Koreans, we are in fact, telling those nations which hope either to join the ranks of the autonomous first-world nations who possess nuclear capability, or merely to defy US political interests abroad, we are telling those nations that so long as they lack real nuclear capability, the US will mess with them. If, however, those nations succeed first, as has North Korea, then the US will have no choice but to negotiate. This is a seriously flawed and irresponsibly dangerous position for the US to take toward the developing nations of the world.
We ask our fellow Mavericks as Americans to search their hearts and answer the following questions for themselves: Is it not true that the effects of the 9/11 terror acts to our economy were far more grave than the effects on our security/safety? Put quite simply, what's a bigger threat to the well-being of the average American: vague acts that might be committed in the future by Osama bin-Laden or the very real act of losing their jobs and/or whole retirement funds to an economy that is presently devastated...now...at this very moment, and growing worse each day?
Should not the number one priority in terms of Homeland Security be to create a viable economic stimulus plan? Does not the best chance for avoiding such attacks in the future lie in using U.S. diplomacy and U.S. dollars wisely to promote genuine understanding, 'fair' not 'free' trade, and comprehensive humanitarian development, thus fostering a new attitude toward America, rather than promoting acts of aggression against countries that have little or no link to the 9/11 terror attacks?
We here at Maverick can only hope that all Americans of good conscience will incessantly ask the same questions of our fearless leader: "Why is Osama bin Laden still free?" and, "What are you doing to fix the economy?" In the face of no good answer to those questions, in the face of American power being placed "in the service of viscous reaction..." We urge all Americans of good conscience to stick up a finger in an obscene, defiant gesture against this war, and against the general policies of U.S. aggression, both political and economic, worldwide. In the meantime, pray for the Americans and for the Iraqis who will be killed in what seems to be a politically motivated, unnecessary, indeed avoidable war.
In Solidarity,
Jefferson Adams, Editor in Chief
San Francisco, 01 February 2003
