Thursday, April 17, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

Editor's Note: Reading the war

More Moore: Lest anyone presume that filmmaker and author Michael Moore has been put in his place by a few boos during his anti-war speech at the Oscars and subsequent right-wing radio rebukes, just look at the numbers. The day after the Academy Awards, attendance at showings of his award-winning documenary Bowling for Columbine increased 110 percent. The following weekend the box office gross was up 73 percent. The film is the highest-grossing documentary in history, bettering the second highest by 300 percent. What's more, after the speech, Moore's latest book Stupid White Men returned to the No. 1 spot on the New York Times best-seller list.

The Dixie Chicks have fared no worse since their lead singer, Natalie Maines, said she was ashamed of President Bush. Their latest album continues to top the country music charts and their concerts continue to sell out.

Moore cites these numbers in a column on his website in an attempt to soothe those who are worried that speaking out against the war will damage their careers or ruin friendships. "Don't let the false patriots intimidate you by setting the agenda of the terms of the debate," Moore advises. And he's right.

Powering up: One of my favorite writers of late is John Powers of L.A. Weekly. His column in the April 4 issue makes two sobering points related to the war in Iraq. First, he notes, the Pentagon has completely taken control of American foreign policy, leaving the State Department in the dust. Citing a new book by Washington Post reporter Dana Priest, Powers explains that over the past 25 years--basically since President Dwight Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex--all the money and power has shifted from the State Department to the Pentagon. What's more, the nation's military leaders are tight with the big corporations, which benefit greatly from the spoils of war.

Second, Powers reminds us about the age-old inequities of war: The wealthy and powerful make the decision to send the poor to the front lines. Blacks and Latinos (including recent immigrants) make up a considerable portion of our armed forces in Iraq, and those who are white most likely don't come from money. It's no different for the Iraqis, because those who can afford it fled Baghdad a long time ago. Powers writes: "As usual, this war finds one country's working people killing another's for the ultimate benefit of the rich, while their leaders mouth unconvincing words about freedom or defending the glorious homeland."

Another approach: Paul Berman is a guy who makes a lot of sense. He's one of those rare species: a pro-war liberal. Berman has strong liberal credentials, but he's been an outspoken advocate of ousting Saddam Hussein. In an interview with Salon.com on the day last week when Baghdad fell, Berman expressed elation. "The overthrow of Saddam is a great accomplishment," he said.

Berman urged liberals to decide which is more important, anti-imperialism or anti-fascism. "What we on the left should do is press for a genuine liberal revolution in Iraq, which is to say press our own government to do more, press our institutions to get involved," he said. "We should make sure the fascism of Iraq is really and truly overthrown. And so if in our anti-imperialist ardor we end up pressing the U.S. to do less in that region, to pull out quicker, to turn over power quicker to whatever colonel will ask for it, that would be a mistake."

Berman emphasized the importance of liberals getting on this bandwagon because he's concerned that President Bush won't do it. "The big issue is to make sure that the efforts on behalf of Iraqi liberalism and a new Iraqi society will be ambitious enough, well-funded enough and include enough of the institutions of American life. We can't count on Bush to do it right. He's had a pathetic record on all this. He's not been helped by people on the left, which has only worsened the problem."

This, it seems, could be a strong campaign cause for Democratic presidential candidates, not to mention a new mission for anti-war protesters. While most of the candidates haven't been willing to challenge Bush on the war per se, they now have the opportunity to get in his face about the aftermath of the war. They can admit that Bush is a helluva warmonger, but he isn't the right guy to handle the cleanup.

The protest movement risks increasing isolation if it doesn't get involved in this process. The war happened. The protests were big and passionate, but they didn't stop it. Now it's time to focus on Iraq--helping the millions of men, women and children over there to have better lives. That's a progressive cause if there ever was one.

--GEOFF SCHUMACHER