Cockburn
/ St. Clair's Scorching New History of a Decade of War
Now Available!
Today's
Stories
July
5, 2004
Kathy
Kelly
"Two Days an' a Wake-Up"
July
3 / 4, 2004
Elaine
Cassel
Bush's Police State and Independence
Day
Stan
Goff
ABC of Opportunism: "Progressive"
Latin American Leaders Support the Coup in Haiti
Snehal
Shingavi
"We Want Real Justice for Bhopal": Two Survivors Speak
Out
Bruce
Anderson
The Cheney-Leahy Metaphor and the Greens
Sharon
Smith
Twilight of the Greens: the Chokehold of "Anybody But Bush"
Josh
Frank
Ralph Nader's Revolt: an Interview with Greg Bates
Robert
Fisk
Pentagon Tried to Censor Saddam's Hearing
Joe
Bageant
Sons of a Laboring God: Leftnecks Unite!
Brian
Cloughley
Fortress Bush and the One Law Doctrine
Justin
Delacour
The Anti-Chavez Echo Chamber: Venezuela's Media Tycoons
William
S. Lind
Saudi Spillover
Linda
S. Heard
A Joke Called "Justice"
Greg
Moses
"It's Illegal, But It's Our Right": Korean Labor Won't
Back Down
Ron
Jacobs
"Ain't You Proud to be White on Independence Day?"
Toni
Solo
Weary of Indigenous Resistances? Just Pretend They're Not There
Dan
Nagengast
Chicken Manure as Cattle Food: Safe, But Do We Want to Eat It?
Stew
Albert
Brando, a Personal Recollection
Dave
Zirin
From the Black Panthers to Sacheen Littlefeather: a Eulogy for
Our Brando
Patrick
W. Gavin
The Progressive Case for Dodgeball
Steven
Rosenthal / Junaid Ahmad
The Problem is Bigger Than the Bushes: a Review of F911
Poets'
Basement
Kearney, Ford and Davies
Website
of the Day
Global Peace Solution
July
2, 2004
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Suicide Right on the Stage: the Demise
of the Green Party
Douglas
Valentine
Fahrenheit 911: Mocking the Moral Crisis of Capitalism
Gary
Leupp
"Just Because I Could": On Obscenities and Opportunities
Lee
Ballinger
Illegal People: Kerry Opposes Immigrant Rights
Robert
Fisk
Saddam in the Dock: Confused? Hardly
CounterPunch
Wire
"What Law Formed This Court?": a Transcript of Saddam's
Arraignment
Christopher
Brauchli
Bush's Drug Card Lottery: the Price Ain't Right
Saul
Landau
Buzz Words and Venezuela
July 1, 2004
Katherine
van Wormer
Bush's Damaged Mind: the Madness in
His Method
Joe
Bageant
Is Our President a Whackjob? Does It Matter?
William
James Martin
The Dogma of Richard Perle
Dave
Lindorff
Bush's Evacuation Moment
Robert
Fisk
Bread and Circus Trials in Iraq
Alan
Maass
Green Party in Reverse
Website
of the Day
Michael Moore and Israel: Blind or a Coward?
June
30, 2004
Kurt Nimmo
Nicholson
Baker's Checkpoint: a New Kind of Anger About Bush
Tariq
Ali
Getting Away with Murder in Iraq
Jennifer
Van Bergen
Bush and the Detainees
Douglas
Valentine
Apotheosis of the Psychopaths: Instead of Fahrenheit 9/11, Rescreen
The Quiet American
David
Price
Fahrenheit 9/11 Through the McCain-Feingold Looking Glass
Roger
Normand
America's Criminal Occupation of Iraq
Stan
Cox
Sanitized for Your Protection: Ashcroft's
War on Art
Henry
David Thoreau
On the Futility of Bush v. Kerry: All Voting is a Kind of Gaming
Ben
Tripp
Who Dast Call Him Liar: a Rebuttal to Nicholas Kristof
June
29, 2004
Patrick
Cockburn
The Cloak-and-Dagger Handover
Robert
Fisk
Alice in an Iraqi Wonderland
Troy
Selvaratnam
New York Times Boosts Pet Developer
Harry
Browne
Bush in Ireland
Ray
McGovern
The CIA According to Anonymous
Elaine
Cassel
Hamdi, Padilla & Rasul: Who Really
Won?
June
28, 2004
Patrick
Cockburn / Leyla Linton
Grisly Rituals in Iraq
Amira
Hass
Confronting Myths and Deadly Power
June
26 / 27, 2004
Alexander
Cockburn
Venezuela: the Gang's All Here
Patrick
Cockburn
Iyad Allawi, the CIA's New Stooge
in Iraq
Dennis
Hans
Once They Were Sweethearts: Cheney,
the NYTs and the Myth of an Iraq Link to 9/11
Ben
Tripp
Adventures in Fuel Efficiency
Dave
Lindorff
That State Department Terrorism
Report: What They Knew, But Didn't Tell You
Chris
Floyd
Cold Irons Bound: the Russian Gambit
Ali
Tonak
Contamination at Berkeley: Profit Motives,
Academic Freedom and the Case of Ignacio Chapela
Keith
Rosenthal
The Withering of the Anti-War Movement
Bryan
Sacks
The Failure of the 9/11 Commission
Wayne
Madsen
Another Case of Blowback
Thomas
St. John
L. Frank Baum, Racist: Indian-Hating
in the Wizard of Oz
Niranjan
Ramakrishnan
American Swadeshi
June
25, 2004
Stephen
Gowans
US to North Korea: "Trust Us"
Saul
Landau
2006 Pentagon Budget as Sacrilege:
Bush Invests the National Treasure in Death and Destruction
Amir
Butler
Iraq: the Deadly Embrace
Jack
McCarthy
Another Times Plagiarism Scandal?
Did Maureen Dowd Lift from the World Weekly News?
Greg
Bates
Chomsky and Zinn Plan to Vote Nader
June 24, 2004
Gary Leupp
John
Lehman on the Iraq / al-Qaeda Links
Patrick Cockburn
A
Day in the Life of Col. Abu Mohammed: Defusing Bombs, Facing
Death Threats
Harry Browne
On
the Rebound: Bush Bounces Back...in Europe
Bill Kaufman
Another
Marxist for Kerry: Joel Kovel's Sad Smear of Ralph Nader
Christopher
Brauchli
Bush,
Cheney and the 9/11 Commission: What Did They Know? What Did
They Tell?
Rick Gioimbetti
Andrea Yates: Victim of Psychiatric Violence?
John Chuckman
Call Center ID Hypocrisy
Diana Johnstone
Kerry
and Kosovo: the Lie of a "Good War"
June 23, 2004
Laura Carlsen
Bush
and Castro Face Off
Dave Zirin
Barry
Bonds vs. Boston: "A Flea Market of Racism"
Kurt Nimmo
From
Saddam, With Love
Patricia Wolff
Foundation Wars
Mahboob A. Khawaja
"They Had Me Arrested and Shackled My Son"
Patrick Cockburn
The
Pretense of an Independent Iraq
Website of the Day
The Road to Abu Ghraib
June 22, 2004
Dave Lindorff
The
Meaning of Putin's Pronouncement: Mutually Assured Pre-emption
Ron Jacobs
Nuclear Plants in US Protectorate of Iraq?
Vanessa Jones
Coogee, Peter Garrett and Valium Earrings
Mickey Z
An Open Letter to the People of Iraq
John L. Hess
Clinton Exhales
Pedro Marset/Ex-Solidarity
Committee for Pacho Cortés
An Exchange on the Case of Pacho Cortés
Bruce Jackson
Saying
No to Prosecutors: Why Steve Kurtz's Colleagues Refused to Testify
Website of the Day
From Boot Camp to Boot Hill
June
21, 2004
Gary
Leupp
Putin's Helpful Remarks
Lucson
Pierre-Charles
Haiti After the Press Went Home: Chaos
Upon Chaos
Cockburn
/ Khan
Saddam May Face Death Penalty
Uri
Avnery
Irreversible Mental Damage
June
19 / 20, 2004
Patrick
Cockburn
Inside the Green Zone: US is Paranoid
and Isolated
Bruce
Anderson
Frozen Gringos
Diane
Christian
Morality and Death: a Meditation
on Bush and Blake
Walter
A. Davis
Passion of the Christ in Abu Ghraib
Josh
Frank
How Democrats Helped Bush Rape Mother
Nature
Col.
Dan Smith
Respectable Genocide?: the Crisis
in Sudan
Brian
Cloughley
A Profound Disruption of the Senses
Christopher
Brauchli
Bush and the Timken Plant, a
Year Later
Prudence
Crowther
Mr. Ashcroft, Deport Me!
Poets'
Basement
Iqbal/Alam, Krieger and Albert
Kathy
Kelly
Dying to See Their Kids
June
18, 2004
Chris
Floyd
Blood Victory
Dave
Zirin
Danielle Green, Basketball Player
& Disabled Vet, Speaks Out Against War
Justin
E.H. Smith
The Christian Question in American
Politics
Gary
Leupp
The "Long-Established" Link?:
Iraq, al-Qaeda, and al-Zarqawi
June
17, 2004
Noel
Ignatiev
Zionism, Anti-Semitism and the People
of Palestine
Kurt
Nimmo
The Bush-Kerry Conundrum
Ed
Cardoni
The Persecution of Steve Kurtz
Ron
Jacobs
Power Relations: Rounding Up Everyone Who Knows More Than They
Do
Dave
Lindorff
Philly Daily News: "Four Wasted Years"
Greg
Moses
Geneva Ignored
Norm
Dixon
How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical
Weapons
June
18, 2004
Noel
Ignatiev
Zionism, Anti-Semitism and the People
of Palestine
Kurt
Nimmo
The Bush-Kerry Conundrum
Ed
Cardoni
The Persecution of Steve Kurtz
Ron
Jacobs
Power Relations: Rounding Up Everyone Who Knows More Than They
Do
Dave
Lindorff
Philly Daily News: "Four Wasted Years"
Greg
Moses
Geneva Ignored
Norm
Dixon
How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical
Weapons
June
16, 2004
Lenni
Brenner
A Question for Kerry Supporters
Davey
D
Hip Hop Reflections on Reagan
Daniel
Wolff
Why Did Michael Moore Withhold Video Evidence of US Prisoner
Abuse?
Bruce
Jackson
Harry Levin and the Penultimate Manuscript of Finnegans Wake
Patrick
Cockburn
Boom! Boom! Out Go the Lights: Bombings Target Oil and Power
Facilities
Gary
Handschumacher
Mourn Ben Linder, Not His Killer: Reagan's Death Squads
JG
Turning Haiti into One Big Sweatshop
Mario
Benedetti
Obituary with Cheers
Vicente
Navarro
Meet the New Head of the IMF: Who
is Rodrigo Rato?
Website
of the Day
Iraqi Oil Revenue Watch
June
15, 2004
Harry
Browne
Ireland Adds a Brick to Fortress Europe
Neve
Gordon
The Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited
David
Palmer
Richard Armitage, Abu Ghraib and CACI
John
Blair
Lovelock's Misguided Call: Nukes Are No Solution to Global Warming
Dave
Lindorff
God Wins in TKO
Bill
Quigley
Blood-Pouring Peace Activists: State Charges Dropped; Feds Step
In
Patrick
Cockburn
Carbombs and Street Dances: 13 More Killed in Baghdad Blast
John
Chuckman
John Kerry, Political Placebo
Hot Stories
Alexander Cockburn
Behold,
the Head of a Neo-Con!
Subcomandante
Marcos
The
Death Train of the WTO
Norman Finkelstein
Hitchens
as Model Apostate
Steve Niva
Israel's
Assassination Policy: the Trigger for Suicide Bombings?
Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams
CounterPunch Exclusive:
20,000 Wounded Iraqi Civilians
Steve
J.B.
Prison Bitch
Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber
True Lies: the Use of Propaganda
in the Iraq War
Wendell
Berry
Small Destructions Add Up
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click
Here for More Stories.
|
July
5, 2004
Stupid
White Movie
What
Michael Moore Misses About the Empire
By
ROBERT JENSEN
I have been defending Michael Moore's
"Fahrenheit 9/11" from the criticism in mainstream
and conservative circles that the film is leftist propaganda.
Nothing could be further from the truth; there is very little
left critique in the movie. In fact, it's hard to find any coherent
critique in the movie at all.
The sad truth is that "Fahrenheit
9/11" is a bad movie, but not for the reasons it is being
attacked in the dominant culture. It's at times a racist movie.
And the analysis that underlies the film's main political points
is either dangerously incomplete or virtually incoherent.
But, most important, it's a
conservative movie that ends with an endorsement of one of the
central lies of the United States, which should warm the hearts
of the right-wingers who condemn Moore. And the real problem
is that many left/liberal/progressive people are singing the
film's praises, which should tell us something about the impoverished
nature of the left in this country.
I say all this not to pick
at small points or harp on minor flaws. These aren't minor points
of disagreement but fundamental questions of analysis and integrity.
But before elaborating on that, I want to talk about what the
film does well.
The good
stuff
First, Moore highlights the
disenfranchisement of primarily black voters in Florida in the
2000 election, a political scandal that the mainstream commercial
news media in the United States has largely ignored. The footage
of a joint session of Congress in which Congressional Black Caucus
members can't get a senator to sign their letter to allow floor
debate about the issue (a procedural requirement) is a powerful
indictment not only of the Republicans who perpetrated the fraud
but the Democratic leadership that refused to challenge it.
Moore also provides a sharp
critique of U.S. military recruiting practices, with some amazing
footage of recruiters cynically at work scouring low-income areas
for targets, whom are disproportionately non-white. The film
also effectively takes apart the Bush administration's use of
fear tactics after 9/11 to drive the public to accept its war
policies.
"Fahrenheit 9/11"
also does a good job of showing war's effects on U.S. soldiers;
we see soldiers dead and maimed, and we see how contemporary
warfare deforms many of them psychologically as well. And the
film pays attention to the victims of U.S. wars, showing Iraqis
both before the U.S. invasion and after in a way that humanizes
them rather than uses them as props.
The problem is that these positive
elements don't add up to a good film. It's a shame that Moore's
talent and flair for the dramatic aren't put in the service of
a principled, clear analysis that could potentially be effective
at something beyond defeating George W. Bush in 2004.
Subtle racism
How dare I describe as racist
a movie that highlights the disenfranchisement of black voters
and goes after the way in which military recruiters chase low-income
minority youth? My claim is not that Moore is an overt racist,
but that the movie unconsciously replicates a more subtle racism,
one that we all have to struggle to resist.
First, there is one segment
that invokes the worst kind of ugly-American nativism, in which
Moore mocks the Bush administration's "coalition of the
willing," the nations it lined up to support the invasion
of Iraq. Aside from Great Britain there was no significant military
support from other nations and no real coalition, which Moore
is right to point out. But when he lists the countries in the
so-called coalition, he uses images that have racist undertones.
To depict the Republic of Palau (a small Pacific island nation),
Moore chooses an image of stereotypical "native" dancers,
while a man riding on an animal-drawn cart represents Costa Rica.
Pictures of monkeys running are on the screen during a discussion
of Morocco's apparent offer to send monkeys to clear landmines.
To ridicule the Bush propaganda on this issue, Moore uses these
images and an exaggerated voice-over in a fashion that says,
in essence, "What kind of coalition is it that has these
backward countries?" Moore might argue that is not his intention,
but intention is not the only question; we all are responsible
for how we tap into these kinds of stereotypes.
More subtle and important is
Moore's invocation of a racism in which solidarity between dominant
whites and non-white groups domestically can be forged by demonizing
the foreign "enemy," which these days has an Arab and
South Asian face. For example, in the segment about law-enforcement
infiltration of peace groups, the camera pans the almost exclusively
white faces (I noticed one Asian man in the scene) in the group
Peace Fresno and asks how anyone could imagine these folks could
be terrorists. There is no consideration of the fact that Arab
and Muslim groups that are equally dedicated to peace have to
endure routine harassment and constantly prove that they weren't
terrorists, precisely because they weren't white.
The other example of political
repression that "Fahrenheit 9/11" offers is the story
of Barry Reingold, who was visited by FBI agents after making
critical remarks about Bush and the war while working out at
a gym in Oakland. Reingold, a white retired phone worker, was
not detained or charged with a crime; the agents questioned him
and left. This is the poster child for repression? In a country
where hundreds of Arab, South Asian and Muslim men were thrown
into secret detention after 9/11, this is the case Moore chooses
to highlight? The only reference in the film to those detentions
post-9/11 is in an interview with a former FBI agent about Saudis
who were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11,
in which it appears that Moore mentions those detentions only
to contrast the kid-gloves treatment that privileged Saudi nationals
allegedly received.
When I made this point to a
friend, he defended Moore by saying the filmmaker was trying
to reach a wide audience that likely is mostly white and probably
wanted to use examples that those people could connect with.
So, it's acceptable to pander to the white audience members and
over-dramatize their limited risks while ignoring the actual
serious harm done to non-white people? Could not a skilled filmmaker
tell the story of the people being seriously persecuted in a
way that non-Arab, non-South Asian, non-Muslims could empathize
with?
Bad analysis
"Fahrenheit 9/11"
is strong on tapping into emotions and raising questions about
why the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11,
but it is extremely weak on answering those questions in even
marginally coherent fashion. To the degree the film has a thesis,
it appears to be that the wars were a product of the personal
politics of a corrupt Bush dynasty. I agree the Bush dynasty
is corrupt, but the analysis the film offers is both internally
inconsistent, extremely limited in historical understanding and,
hence, misguided.
Is the administration of George
W. Bush full of ideological fanatics? Yes. Have its actions since
9/11 been reckless and put the world at risk? Yes. In the course
of pursuing those policies, has it enriched fat-cat friends?
Yes.
But it is a serious mistake
to believe that these wars can be explained by focusing so exclusively
on the Bush administration and ignoring clear trends in U.S.
foreign and military policy. In short, these wars are not a sharp
departure from the past but instead should be seen as an intensification
of longstanding policies, affected by the confluence of this
particular administration's ideology and the opportunities created
by the events of 9/11.
Look first at Moore's treatment
of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. He uses a clip of former
counterterrorism official Richard Clarke complaining that the
Bush administration's response to 9/11 in Afghanistan was "slow
and small," implying that we should have attacked faster
and bigger. The film does nothing to question that assessment,
leaving viewers to assume that Moore agrees. Does he think that
a bombing campaign that killed at least as many innocent Afghans
as Americans who died on 9/11 was justified? Does he think that
a military response was appropriate, and simply should have been
more intense, which would have guaranteed even more civilian
casualties? Does he think that a military strategy, which many
experts believe made it difficult to pursue more routine and
productive counterterrorism law-enforcement methods, was a smart
move?
Moore also suggests that the
real motivation of the Bush administration in attacking Afghanistan
was to secure a gas pipeline route from the Caspian Basin to
the sea. It's true that Unocal had sought such a pipeline, and
at one point Taliban officials were courted by the United States
when it looked as if they could make such a deal happen. Moore
points out that Taliban officials traveled to Texas in 1997 when
Bush was governor. He fails to point out that all this happened
with the Clinton administration at the negotiating table. It
is highly unlikely that policymakers would go to war for a single
pipeline, but even if that were plausible it is clear that both
Democrats and Republicans alike have been mixed up in that particular
scheme.
The centerpiece of Moore's
analysis of U.S. policy in the Middle East is the relationship
of the Bush family to the Saudis and the bin Laden family. The
film appears to argue that those business interests, primarily
through the Carlyle Group, led the administration to favor the
Saudis to the point of ignoring potential Saudi complicity in
the attacks of 9/11. After laying out the nature of those business
dealings, Moore implies that the Bushes are literally on the
take.
It is certainly true that the
Bush family and its cronies have a relationship with Saudi Arabia
that has led officials to overlook Saudi human-rights abuses
and the support that many Saudis give to movements such as al
Qaeda. That is true of the Bushes, just as it was of the Clinton
administration and, in fact, every post-World War II president.
Ever since FDR cut a deal with the House of Saud giving U.S.
support in exchange for cooperation on the flow of oil and oil
profits, U.S. administrations have been playing ball with the
Saudis. The relationship is sometimes tense but has continued
through ups and downs, with both sides getting at least part
of what they need from the other. Concentrating on Bush family
business connections ignores that history and encourages viewers
to see the problem as specific to Bush. Would a Gore administration
have treated the Saudis differently after 9/11? There's no reason
to think so, and Moore offers no evidence or argument why it
would have.
But that's only part of the
story of U.S. policy in the Middle East, in which the Saudis
play a role but are not the only players. The United States cuts
deals with other governments in the region that are willing to
support the U.S. aim of control over those energy resources.
The Saudis are crucial in that system, but not alone. Egypt,
Jordan and the other Gulf emirates have played a role, as did
Iran under the Shah. As does, crucially, Israel. But there is
no mention of Israel in the film. To raise questions about U.S.
policy in the Middle East without addressing the role of Israel
as a U.S. proxy is, to say the least, a significant omission.
It's unclear whether Moore actually backs Israeli crimes and
U.S. support for them, or simply doesn't understand the issue.
And what of the analysis of
Iraq? Moore is correct in pointing out that U.S. support for
Iraq during the 1980s, when Saddam Hussein's war on Iran was
looked upon favorably by U.S. policymakers, was a central part
of Reagan and Bush I policy up to the Gulf War. And he's correct
in pointing out that Bush II's invasion and occupation have caused
great suffering in Iraq. What is missing is the intervening eight
years in which the Clinton administration used the harshest economic
embargo in modern history and regular bombing to further devastate
an already devastated country. He fails to point out that Clinton
killed more Iraqis through that policy than either of the Bush
presidents. He fails to mention the 1998 Clinton cruise missile
attack on Iraq, which was every bit as illegal as the 2003 invasion.
It's not difficult to articulate
what much of the rest of the world understands about U.S. policy
in Iraq and the Middle East: Since the end of WWII, the United
States has been the dominant power in the Middle East, constructing
a system that tries to keep the Arab states weak and controllable
(and, as a result, undemocratic) and undermine any pan-Arab nationalism,
and uses allies as platforms and surrogates for U.S. power (such
as Israel and Iran under the Shah). The goal is control over
(not ownership of, but control over) the strategically crucial
energy resources of the region and the profits that flow from
them, which in an industrial world that runs on oil is a source
of incredible leverage over competitors such as the European
Union, Japan and China.
The Iraq invasion, however
incompetently planned and executed by the Bush administration,
is consistent with that policy. That's the most plausible explanation
for the war (by this time, we need no longer bother with the
long-ago forgotten rationalizations of weapons of mass destruction
and the alleged threat Iraq posed to the United States). The
war was a gamble on the part of the Bush gang. Many in the foreign-policy
establishment, including Bush I stalwarts such as Brent Scowcroft,
spoke out publicly against war plans they thought were reckless.
Whether Bush's gamble, in pure power terms, will pay off or not
is yet to be determined.
When the film addresses this
question directly, what analysis does Moore offer of the reasons
for the Iraq war? A family member of a soldier who died asks,
"for what?" and Moore cuts to the subject of war profiteering.
That segment appropriately highlights the vulture-like nature
of businesses that benefit from war. But does Moore really want
us to believe that a major war was launched so that Halliburton
and other companies could increase its profits for a few years?
Yes, war profiteering happens, but it is not the reason nations
go to war. This kind of distorted analysis helps keep viewers'
attention focused on the Bush administration, by noting the close
ties between Bush officials and these companies, not the routine
way in which corporate America makes money off the misnamed Department
of Defense, no matter who is in the White House.
All this is summed up when
Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a son killed in the war, visits
the White House in a final, emotional scene and says that she
now has somewhere to put all her pain and anger. This is the
message of the film: It's all about the Bush administration.
If that's the case, the obvious conclusion is to get Bush out
of the White House so that things can get back to to what? I'll
return to questions of political strategy at the end, but for
now it's important to realize how this attempt to construct Bush
as pursuing some radically different policy is bad analysis and
leads to a misunderstanding of the threat the United States poses
to the world. Yes, Moore throws in a couple of jabs at the Democrats
in Congress for not stopping the mad rush to war in Iraq, but
the focus is always on the singular crimes of George W. Bush
and his gang.
A conservative
movie
The claim that "Fahrenheit
9/11" is a conservative movie may strike some as ludicrous.
But the film endorses one of the central lies that Americans
tell themselves, that the U.S. military fights for our freedom.
This construction of the military as a defensive force obscures
the harsh reality that the military is used to project U.S. power
around the world to ensure dominance, not to defend anyone's
freedom, at home or abroad.
Instead of confronting this
mythology, Moore ends the film with it. He points out, accurately,
the irony that those who benefit the least from the U.S. system
-- the chronically poor and members of minority groups -- are
the very people who sign up for the military. "They offer
to give up their lives so we can be free," Moore says, and
all they ask in return is that we not send them in harm's way
unless it's necessary. After the Iraq War, he wonders, "Will
they ever trust us again?"
It is no doubt true that many
who join the military believe they will be fighting for freedom.
But we must distinguish between the mythology that many internalize
and may truly believe, from the reality of the role of the U.S.
military. The film includes some comments by soldiers questioning
that very claim, but Moore's narration implies that somehow a
glorious tradition of U.S. military endeavors to protect freedom
has now been sullied by the Iraq War.
The problem is not just that
the Iraq War was fundamentally illegal and immoral. The whole
rotten project of empire building has been illegal and immoral
-- and every bit as much a Democratic as a Republican project.
The millions of dead around the world -- in Latin America, Africa,
the Middle East, Southeast Asia -- as a result of U.S. military
actions and proxy wars don't care which U.S. party was pulling
the strings and pulling the trigger when they were killed. It's
true that much of the world hates Bush. It's also true that much
of the world has hated every post-WWII U.S. president. And for
good reasons.
It is one thing to express
solidarity for people forced into the military by economic conditions.
It is quite another to pander to the lies this country tells
itself about the military. It is not disrespectful to those who
join up to tell the truth. It is our obligation to try to prevent
future wars in which people are sent to die not for freedom but
for power and profit. It's hard to understand how we can do that
by repeating the lies of the people who plan, and benefit from,
those wars.
Political
strategy
The most common defense I have
heard from liberals and progressives to these criticisms of "Fahrenheit
9/11" is that, whatever its flaws, the movie sparks people
to political action. One response is obvious: There is no reason
a film can't spark people to political action with intelligent
and defensible analysis, and without subtle racism.
But beyond that, it's not entirely
clear the political action that this film will spark goes much
beyond voting against Bush. The "what can I do now?"
link on Moore's website suggests four actions, all of which are
about turning out the vote. These resources about voting are
well organized and helpful. But there are no links to grassroots
groups organizing against not only the Bush regime but the American
empire more generally.
I agree that Bush should be
kicked out of the White House, and if I lived in a swing state
I would consider voting Democratic. But I don't believe that
will be meaningful unless there emerges in the United States
a significant anti-empire movement. In other words, if we beat
Bush and go back to "normal," we're all in trouble.
Normal is empire building. Normal is U.S. domination, economic
and military, and the suffering that vulnerable people around
the world experience as a result. This doesn't mean voters can't
judge one particular empire-building politician more dangerous
than another. It doesn't mean we shouldn't sometimes make strategic
choices to vote for one over the other. It simply means we should
make such choices with eyes open and no illusions. This seems
particularly important when the likely Democratic presidential
candidate tries to out-hawk Bush on support for Israel, pledges
to continue the occupation of Iraq, and says nothing about reversing
the basic trends in foreign policy.
In this sentiment, I am not
alone. Ironically, Barry Reingold -- the Oakland man who was
visited by the FBI -- is critical of what he sees as the main
message of the film. He was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle
saying: "I think Michael Moore's agenda is to get Bush out,
but I think it (should be) about more than Bush. I think it's
about the capitalist system, which is inequitable." He went
on to critique Bush and Kerry: "I think both of them are
bad. I think Kerry is actually worse because he gives the illusion
that he's going to do a lot more. Bush has never given that illusion.
People know that he's a friend of big business."
Nothing I have said here is
an argument against reaching out to a wider audience and trying
to politicize more people. That's what I try to do in my own
writing and local organizing work, as do countless other activists.
The question isn't whether to reach out, but with what kind of
analysis and arguments. Emotional appeals and humor have their
place; the activists I work with use them. The question is, where
do such appeals lead people?
It is obvious that "Fahrenheit
9/11" taps into many Americans' fear and/or hatred of Bush
and his gang of thugs. Such feelings are understandable, and
I share them. But feelings are not analysis, and the film's analysis,
unfortunately, doesn't go much beyond the feeling: It's all Bush's
fault. That may be appealing to people, but it's wrong. And it
is hard to imagine how a successful anti-empire movement can
be built on this film's analysis unless it is challenged. Hence,
the reason for this essay.
The potential value of Moore's
film will be realized only if it is discussed and critiqued,
honestly. Yes, the film is under attack from the right, for very
different reasons than I have raised. But those attacks shouldn't
stop those who consider themselves left, progressive, liberal,
anti-war, anti-empire or just plain pissed-off from criticizing
the film's flaws and limitations. I think my critique of the
film is accurate and relevant. Others may disagree. The focus
of debate should be on the issues raised, with an eye toward
the question of how to build an anti-empire movement. Rallying
around the film can too easily lead to rallying around bad analysis.
Let's instead rally around the struggle for a better world, the
struggle to dismantle the American empire.
Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University
of Texas at Austin and the author of "Citizens of the Empire:
The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity" from City Lights Books.
He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.
Weekend Edition
Features for June 12 / 13, 2004
Peter
Linebaugh
Remembering the Common Hood: Soweto
and Runnymede
Team
CounterPunch
CP's Favorite Albums
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Troy, Now and Then
Gary
Leupp
Not Really a Puppet Government in Iraq?
Brian
Cloughley
US Military in Crisis
Antonio
Ponvert, III
Iraqi Prisoner Abuse: the Connecticut Connection
Ben
Tripp
The Polls Get Stupider
Joe
Bageant
Mash Note to the "Girl with the Leash"
Ron
Jacobs
The Return of the Hip Hop Insurgency
Forrest
Hylton
Object Lessons from the Case of Francisco Cortés
Christopher
Brauchli
Federal Bureau of Errors
Kurt
Nimmo
Going After Qaddafi, Again
Wayne
Madsen
Israel's Slap at Reagan
Anthony
Loewenstein
Al Jazeera Awakens the Arab World
Michael
Donnelly
A Lightship in the Forest: Greenpeace Docks in the Siskiyous
Greg
Moses
Who Will Tell Us More About the Workers of Nasiriyah?
Susan
Davis
Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban
Joseph
Ramsey
Weather Report: a Review of The Weather Underground
Niranjan
Ramakrishnan
The 18th Brumaire in the 21st
Century
Wayne
Saunders
The Gipper, D-Day and the Stanley Cup
Poets'
Basement
Richey, Ford, La Morticella, Albert
Website
of the Weekend
Insurgent Music
Keep
CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home
/ subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|