How Can You Discredit Cold-Blooded Killers?

I'll keep this short. It's far too beautiful a day to dwell on things that set my teeth chattering -- like Naomi Klein.

But alas, Klein -- who has been a respected luminary among a young generation of dissidents-- now seems to be headed defintively around the bend.

After her piece of a few weeks ago flakking for Moqtada Al Sadr which I and and others spent some time fisking, Naomi's back this week with another whopper.

This time she and co-author Jermy Scahill write in The Guardian that the recent Baghdad kidnappings of two Italian peace workers were likely carried out not by the good guys in the Islamic resistance, but rather by the bad guys in un-named "foreign intelligence services" whose operatives apparently speak... English.

One problem with Naomi's story. It has no sources. And no facts.

If one of my USC journalism students had dared to turn such a thread-bare piece of unsupported reporting I would have him or her thrown out of the school.

Hurry Up Harry does a quick and dirty job of dispensing with this piece. Take a look.

But allow me to join in his amazement over Klein and Scahill's staggering assertion that the motive for such a kidnapping by CIA agents would be to "discredit the resistance" and "justify the brutal occupation."

What??

The Bush administration has been justifying the occupation now for 16 months and hardly needs to invent the kidnapping of two peace workers to continue.

But the really scary part is that, apparently, in the eyes of Scahill and Klein, the resistance's penchant for blowing up dozens of civilians at a time with car bombs and carrying out beheadings of other innocent workers doesn't already qualify them for "discrediting."

My God, we've come to this?

Scahill already has an established record of producing blatantly pro-Saddam and pro-Milosevic pieces for his Democracy Now! employers. No surprise that this new nonsense comes from him.

But from Naomi Klein I would expect more. At least, I used to.

Comments

[steve]

your criticiism of their not having any 'sources' seems like a rather cheap cheap shot. Is the piece a journalistic article or is it a commentary? Hint: the latter.

[also steve]

What's the big deal about Naomi Klein omitting facts? You yourself told your blog readers that Muqtada al-Sadr had no significant support in the country, when polls indicated only a couple of months ago that he was Iraq's second most popular leader. Physician, heal thyself.

[santo]

Oh dear -- yet another attack on Klein. How brave and absolutely necessary. Methinks that Marc's balance has been severely affected, by what I can't say. But when he tees off on Klein for being pro-Sadr (and I've yet seen a clear and unambiguous statement by her making such a claim), yet glosses over his "bud" Totten's calls for murdering al-Sadr (in language that would make Saddam smile, given that Saddam had the same opinion when in power), one is tempted to surmise that Marc's hearing in his right ear is fading fast, while the hearing in his left ear has become amplified to the point of distortion and buzzing. I know that saying this on Marc's blog will push him to write, once again, that he's sorry he's not radical enough for me, that his hair shirt's at the cleaners, etc. But one must state what one sees.

[santo]

What what's with this "formidable foe" description of that Scaife-drenched nut Horowtiz? Hellllllooo, Marc! I'm speaking in your right ear -- can you hear me????

POP. BUZZZZZ. CRACKLE.

[Michael J. Totten]

Santo,

Go ahead and argue that killing Moqtada al Sadr would be counterproductive, would only make him a "martyr," or whatnot. You may be right. But killing the enemy in war is not "murder." You do know that Moqtada al Sadr is an enemy of the United States, right? He's not a neutral. And he certainly isn't an ally.

If Moqtada al Sadr really does decide to lay down his guns once and for all and morph into Iraq's Pat Robertson, that's fine with me. Somebody has to be Iraq's Pat Robertson. But when he's killing our boys he is a legitimate military target. He is not a head of state that has any kind of immunity.

[santo]

Totten -- you have the same opinion of al-Sadr as did (does?) Saddam. Also, the same prescription. That's telling. What happened to all the lib hawk tears for the Shi'a when Saddam was steamrolling them? How is it that, overnight, those Saddam had targeted for elimination became our targets too? Because they won't get with the privatization program? Because they bristle under a violent, foreign occupation? Funny how this "liberation" has become a version of Saddam Lite, while the original, in his cell, laughs to himself and wonders what the fuss was about.

[Michael J. Totten]

Santo,

I advocated killing al Sadr only in the heat of battle when he vowed to fight to his "last drop of blood." That's hardly a Saddamite prescription. If Sadr wants to be an anti-American dissident, fine. He shouldn't be killed for *that*.

If you declare war on someone you have to expect that you'll be shot at for your efforts. That's just the way these things work.

Saddam Hussein bulldozed people for being born Kurdish or because they rolled their eyes at one of his statues. Go ahead and lump me in with him if it makes you feel better, but I think most people are well aware that returning fire differs pretty substantially from committing genocide.

[steve]

If you declare war on someone you have to expect that you'll be shot at for your efforts. That's just the way these things work.

--it's easy for armchair warriors to talk this way. this is especially so if your immediate relatives' lives are not on the line in a war fought to help a president get reelected. but if you really wanna see troop deaths reduced, calling for al sadr's murder is hardly the way to accomplish that.
furthermore, in what way is al sadr an 'enemy' of america? you mean he's an enemy of the occupation? well, that makes most iraqis enemies i guess. if the US left tomorrow, al sadr would be back to dealing with Iraqi problems minus having the US around to deal with. there is no indication that al sadr comes from a long line of hating americans or has in any sense indicated an interest in expanding his leadership to a broader agenda of challenging the US in the international arena. So, I'm curious, outside of doing what the majority of Iraqis do, resisting the occupation, how is Al Sadr an 'enemy' of the US and if he is an 'enemy' of the US, why is the US negotiating with him? ditto the US appointed mayor Allawi?

[steve]

If you declare war on someone you have to expect that you'll be shot at for your efforts. That's just the way these things work.

--it's easy for armchair warriors to talk this way. this is especially so if your immediate relatives' lives are not on the line in a war fought to help a president get reelected. but if you really wanna see troop deaths reduced, calling for al sadr's murder is hardly the way to accomplish that.
furthermore, in what way is al sadr an 'enemy' of america? you mean he's an enemy of the occupation? well, that makes most iraqis enemies i guess. if the US left tomorrow, al sadr would be back to dealing with Iraqi problems minus having the US around to deal with. there is no indication that al sadr comes from a long line of hating americans or has in any sense indicated an interest in expanding his leadership to a broader agenda of challenging the US in the international arena. So, I'm curious, outside of doing what the majority of Iraqis do, resisting the occupation, how is Al Sadr an 'enemy' of the US and if he is an 'enemy' of the US, why is the US negotiating with him? ditto the US appointed mayor Allawi?

[santo]

Totten -- Ha! What thin slicing of a distinction. Saddam lived with those who hated him -- if not, he would have slaughtered tens of millions. But he did not take kindly to those who rose against his rule, as the Shi'a did in '91 (at the urging of GHWB, who then sat back to watch his old ally do what originally endeared him to the West). Those mass graves that the likes of you used as justification for this invasion are evidence of that, just as the mass graves we are helping to fill this minute are evidence that we, and our puppet Allawi, have taken a bloody page from Saddam's playbook. Fool yourself all you like, but you and the Beast have more in common than you'll ever admit.

[Michael J. Totten]

Santo: "Fool yourself all you like, but you and the Beast have more in common than you'll ever admit."

Nice logic and moral equivalency there.

"Saddam used force. And Saddam was a genocidal fascist. Therefore everyone who uses force is a genocidal fascist."

You think our soldiers shouldn't fight back when they get shot at? What would you have them do instead? Play Ghandi? Run away? Surrender?

There is an argument for not killing Sadr even in the heat of battle, but you have not yet figured out what it is.

[santo]

"Saddam used force. And Saddam was a genocidal fascist. Therefore everyone who uses force is a genocidal fascist."

Wow -- this is dumb. Think past cliches for a second and look at history. Saddam slaughtered the Shi'a because they raised arms against him. The US is slaughtering Shi'a because they raise arms against us. There's your equation, and a pretty obvious one at that, especially when you add in that we supported Saddam's slaughter of the Shi'a -- till it was useful for propaganda purposes -- then, in retrospect (erasing our approval) we denounced it. Do you hear the music yet, Totten? Do you hear anything?

[Marc Cooper]

Santo.. what a simple world you live in. I think you know very well that the view of the Shia toward the U.S. is infinitely more complex than you portray it. Indeed, one of the reasons that the immensely more popular (than Sadr) Ayatollah Sistani has been playing a nuanced and skillful game of footsie with the occupation is that precisely because of Saddam's record the Ayatollah backed his overthrow. He also knows that the instrument of that overthrow -- the U.S.-- presents a whole set of new problems for the Shia, but in the meantime at least cracks open the door for their self-determination and some real, if not dominant, quota of political power. But I know this is a pointless debate with you.. your anger and rage is palpable. Which is certainly your right... but why not try dialoguing with those you oppose rather than just slinging accusations at them?
I would also urge you (but not require you) to affix ur email address. Doing so would reveal a bit more of a stake in the discussion.

[steve]

Indeed, one of the reasons that the immensely more popular (than Sadr) Ayatollah Sistani has been playing a nuanced and skillful game of footsie with the occupation is that precisely because of Saddam's record the Ayatollah backed his overthrow.

--you seem to overlook that he has been playing a game of footsie with al sadr. in fact, he's played more of that game with al sadr, with whom he'll meet [yes, sistani the good shiite will meet with the 'enemy' of the US], while he refuses to meet in person with the US occupation forces.
Possibly it's Totten who lives in a simple world, believing against all the thinking of the US military and politicians that killing Al Sadr would somehow bring peace to Iraq or move it toward peace. I mean, if there ever were a simplistic stance to take, or even, dare I say, naive as can be, well...there ya have it.
Actually, there's the irony again, Totten loves to go after people who disagree with his odd interpretation of the ongoing US occupation of Iraq as being "against the troops"...yet can ya think of a better way to guarantee more troops being killed than setting off a civil war in the aftermath of killing Al Sadr?

[GMRoper]

Totally OT, well, maybe not. A great read on Chomsky. Should be read by every leftist, centrist and rightest. http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/sept04/keith.htm

[steve]

He once supported the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, claiming the genocidal evacuation of Phnom Penh in 1976 was due to a failed rice crop and “may actually have saved many lives.”

--wow, this guy just makes stuff up after starting the article out with insult after insult. he supported Pol Pot, what a joke. It's more like the president during the 80's, whom the author of this attack supported, was directly supportive of Pol Pot [for realist reasons surely...].

[Michael J. Totten]

Steve: "Totten loves to go after people who disagree with his odd interpretation of the ongoing US occupation of Iraq as being "against the troops"..."

I do? Since when? Quote me. And I don't mean paraphrase me, quote me.

I'll help you out. Go to my blog. Type the phrase "against the troops" into my search box and see what you come up with.

I'll help you out even further. If you enter that phrase in quotation marks you will come up with absolutely nothing. I have never typed that phrase in print. Ever.

If you type those three words into the search box without wrapping them in quotes, you will find a few posts that happen to have those three words in them somewhere, but those words do not appear in the same sentence let alone consecutively.

Then broaden your search. Go to Google. Type the phrases "against the troops" and "Michael J. Totten" into the search box. Enjoy the search results. I *assure* you it won't take you very long to sift through all four of them or to notice, once again, that I never typed those three words in a row until just this minute while quoting you back at yourself.

[steve]

oh great, i've been 'gotcha'd'. yes, you've not printed those exact words, as though that is the point. how about 'anti-US', 'anti-american'? would it be a stretch that you've characterized people as anti-american who have supported the right of Iraqis to armed resistance against the occupation? Or that if you support the right to resistance that you don't 'support the troops'?
And I remain utterly amazed that someone who insists that 'support for the troops' is so important would call for something so incredibly dangerous for the troops remaining ability to live--namely the killing of Al Sadr.

[steve]

Liberals support the troops. Leftists support the Iraqi Baathist resistance and put “terrorism” in sneer quotes.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000222.html

[Michael J. Totten]

Steve: "would it be a stretch that you've characterized people as anti-american who have supported the right of Iraqis to armed resistance against the occupation? Or that if you support the right to resistance that you don't 'support the troops'? "

No, that is not a stretch. That is an accurate representation of my view. And I stand by it.

You can't support the troops if you support the people who kill the troops. And you can't be pro-American if you are a cheerleader for people who kill Americans.

You'll notice that I made a distinction between liberals and leftists. I very specifically stated (in the quote you excerpted) that liberals DO support the troops with the full knowledge that many if not most liberals do *not* support the war in Iraq.

[steve]

--And you can't be pro-American if you are a cheerleader for people who kill Americans.

--Mussolini would have been proud of you if you were an Italian speaking to Italians during WW 2. Hate to tell ya Michael, it might break your heart, but being a member of a democracy means being a citizen with the capacity to criticise your government's participation in wars of choice and pointless death and destruction. So, possibly an Italian under Mussolini could be reasonably expected to oppose uneqivocally the right of Ethiopians to resist Italians through armed resistance. That an American, free of the constraint of a fascist government in power, should feel so inclined to insist on thinking is astounding.
Guess what Michael, gasp (!) I also think that Vietnamese had the right to resist American occupiers in their battle for sovereignty. Supporting that right was also the best guarantee that American troops would be sent home earlier to their kids alive. Ditto Iraq.
----------------------------
You'll notice that I made a distinction between liberals and leftists. I very specifically stated (in the quote you excerpted) that liberals DO support the troops with the full knowledge that many if not most liberals do *not* support the war in Iraq.

--calling for the murder of Al Sadr is not liberal nor does it support the troops in any serious fashion outside armchair warrior sloganeering, 1, and 2, your distinction is bizarre. Martin Luther King was a leftist. And hate to break it to you, Kucinich is a dye in the wool Roosevelt Liberal.

[Michael J. Totten]

Steve: "calling for the murder of Al Sadr is not liberal"

Maybe not, but let me explain War 101 to you.

Intentionally killing unarmed civilians during war is murder.

Killing a self-declared enemy on the battlefield is not murder.

That's why the first is a war crime and the second is not.

GMRoper -- The critique of Chomsky's work is interesting to read. It's not very specific. Perhaps the book is. But the critique does get one thing wrong -- Chomsky really DID do fundamental work of the highest order on transformational grammars in the 1950s. The two basic papers are -

"Three models for the description of languages", IRE Trans. on Information Theory, vol 2 no 3, 1956.
"On certain formal properties of grammars", Inform. and Control, vol 2 no 2, 1959.

They're math papers, so assumptions are stated and theorems are proved -- the results are not open to later re-interpretation by liberals or conservatives. ;-)

There was a major flowering of mathematical work on abstracted transformational models for language (e.g., computer languages) in this period, and Chomsky was one of the main figures. The idea was to define several classes of models (there turned out to be four) and explore what machines (i.e., computer capabilities) would be needed to parse sentences (e.g., computer programs) generated by these four model classes. Some of the best mathematicians of the last century, such as Alan Turing and Alonzo Church, contributed to this theory.

These papers and the related work is used by computer scientists and engineers, who need to build real parsers for computer languages (including HTML). It is also the starting point for the speech processing and automatic translation software that you're starting to see.

Chomsky's later work on "natural language" -- like English -- is not familiar to me. But the article you reference is dead wrong in missing these fundamental contributions to mathematics.

I just googled and found the following link which summarizes these achievements:
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Chomsky%20hierarchy

[Michael Turmon]

The above Chomsky commentary is mine -- somehow the link was omitted.

Mike

[steve]

Intentionally killing unarmed civilians during war is murder.

--but dropping god knows how many tons of bombs on residential neighborhoods, illegally invading countries to help a president with his reelection chances, shooting into crowds of unarmed demonstrators,...that is ok. I see.
And are you saying that Sadr is involved in the kidnappings? I haven't heard that from the US military. So, now I'm to believe that Allawi, the US chosen mayor of Baghdad, who couldn't last a day without US approval, is knowingly negotiating with a person who has been involved in the kidnappings of Americans and Iraqis and other nationals? This war only gets more bizarre with every passing day.
---------------------------
Killing a self-declared enemy on the battlefield is not murder.

--hmmm...I'd say it's murder. It's knowingly acting in a fashion that will result in many more unnecessary deaths of the very people you claim to support, namely US occupying troops in Iraq. It is for this reason that most military disagree with your calls for murder of Al Sadr, which would only result in more unnecessary and pointless deaths of Americans.
But, I'm glad to get a 'war 101' lesson from a person who has had exactly the same amount of experience in actual warfare as myself: Zero.